The Final Hurdle And The Biggest Risk To PEP-11, page-55

Summary of the criticisms so far:

The accumulation of days doesn’t reflect the application wait times (sure, but all I said was it had been 3114 days since the last renewal, this is a fact…)

Bight Petroleum and Advent’s efforts are different, yes, but they are still within their permit conditions, their drill is still not yet due.

EPP 41/42 are unrelated to PEP-11, the concept that their variation was rejected is very relevant to PEP-11. 1) they made a variation application 2) it got rejected 3) PEP-11 included a variation in their application 4) read the rules on variations: "The Joint Authority will generally only agree to a variation if the proposed replacement work program activity is a similar or superior technique " then ask yourself if PEP-11's application is compliant.

“speculating” on what NOPTA told the Joint Authority, it is just common sense that if they are willing to tell the public that the application could have been rejected for non-compliance, then they would be willing to tell the Joint Authority the same thing.

“Bight Petroleum do not have carbon capture and storage” neither does PEP-11, the secondary goal for PEP-11 was to identify if they could setup CSS, no-one says that it is 100% possible. You are all talking about CSS as though it trumps the rules surrounding permit approvals, that is baseless and unfounded.

The fundamentals have/haven’t changed, if the risks change, the fundamentals have changed.

The interpretation of “superior”. Some users have stated that the drill is superior, this is flawed logic, because a drill and 3D seismic (which adds to the data bank) is superior to just a drill. Also why bother including 3D seismic in the first place if a drill alone was superior?

Equinor had the permit ownership before Bight Petroleum…. This is completely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the assessment of “Bight Petroleum”, the NOPTA decision had nothing to do with Equinor, the rules specifically say they assess the work performance of the applicant, not previous applicants… That is like saying “oh we need to take into consideration what Santos did when they held PEP-11 also back in the 90’s.." that is completely illogical.

The first post on this thread assesses the first application which has a “variation” the COVID-19 flexibility scheme does not apply to this application. .

“They had a valid reason for not drilling last year, which is due to COVID-19” well.. did they? If they did, they should have put that in their first application lol. The truth is the drill was meant to be done from the 13/02/2019 to the 12/02/2020. The pandemic was declared on 11/03/2020, as of 30/01/2020 the WHO declared the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, Australia had their first case of COVID-19 on the 25/01/2020. So at best, if you think they were affected by COVID-19 because of a lock down in Wuhan… then you would say from 30/01/2020 to the 12/02/2020 they were “affected (this is 13 days…) So at best you could say COVID was spreading for 13days and “affected” their ability to drill? Lol… I don’t think so.

Also, ironically QMAC that exert you showed reminded me, remember how I told everyone Lucy Wicks M.P was against PEP-11 in those very posts, last year and literally no-one believed me? Well.. now we know I was right… again.