Wooooo Hooooo Go BPH :)$$$$$$, page-34656

At this stage of the day/game my thoughts are about fairness.

We have been seemingly tied up in a decision making process that I for one cannot see where in the relevant OPGGS Act that this is part of the due process. The company Asset Energy has been told by NOPSEMA they will not entertain an environmental application and yet this according to the relevant Act is also unfounded.

Maybe it is time to get back to basics and ram home the fact (if indeed myself and @Flambeau) are correct that we can indeed continue "in force" with actions able to be taken to move towards the ultimate goal of proving the P50 reserves. $57B are a lot of Weeties and imagine the carbon reduction by not having to compress and import this amount of gas via the PKIT.

ACTIONS,
1, let the court action continue
2, make a formal request to NOPTA to advise as per the OPGGS Act the relevant status of our permit (ie: In Force)
3, take this status and if deemed to be "in force" we continue with the planning to drill the prospect
4, if deemed to be "in force" and actionable we can easily raise the funds required to drill at least 1 hole as the Eastern State manufacturers desperately are in need of a cheap and reliable source of Gas and surely would contribute via an option to secure supply
5, if the above 1-3 are for whatever reason are a no go, then we look at just a simple renewal (which cannot be rejected), forgo the 50% of currently unwanted blocks and drill

Sounds easy doesn't it? Why are we all complicating it by accepting political roadblocks as deeming to be taken under the OPGGS Act when in fact they are not lawful.

Thats it for me and hopefully some of you can independently prove via the OPGGS Act that what Flam and I feel is true.

Thanks for reading!