Ann: WGO: Strike's First Supplementary Bidder's Statement, page-81

Great pickup, Mir. Too coincidental to be, er, coincidence, one would think.

Hi Mundus. The FAR/WPL situation was totally different - it was the outcome I found instructive. Just quickly:

> FAR and Conoco Phillips in JV discovered a massive oilfield off Senegal.

> Woodside bought out CP's shelf company (and with it, its assets - its oil share).

> FAR claimed pre-emptive rights and went to the international tribunal in an action supposed to cost a million dollars and be settled in 12 months.

> Three or so years later - during which time FAR's SP tanked - the court ruled FAR's claim was flawed and it had no jurisdiction.

> FAR (almost) went out the back door and WPL sailed on to develop the asset.

As Base pointed out, we heard a lot of hubris from FAR's management, which was hopelessly outgunned by Woodside.

Strike is a different beast in a different situation. IMO Strike is well-managed: FAR certainly wasn't. And in this case the much larger Hancock is the aggressor and Strike is responding. I almost typed 'Strike is defending', but I think that's a misnomer - Strike is in fact proving to be aggressive itself, and as ever, attack is the best form of defence.

My point was that we typewriter jockeys should avoid the hubristic assumption that Strike is in the driving seat and will 'win' this (in whatever form you measure a win). Hancock - and for that matter WPL, STO, Mitsui et al - are formidable foes with deep pockets and clever lawyers. Whoever ends up making a big play for Strike or its assets will want to pay the least possible for the greatest possible control. As I noted the other day, this is a multi-billion dollar, multi-decade resource; it will not be ceded easily.

OOO