General Thoughts, page-6150

Like most here, if not all, I remain baffled as to what the issue is with this "seismic licence" and its associated delay. So I went back to the Woodside Exclusive Option Agreement announcement from March 1, 2023: https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/PCL/02639174.pdf

Therein I did not find any mention whatsoever that Woodside receive a "Seismic Licence" as a condition that triggers the six month period for Woodside to take up the option or not. All I could find was the following: "Woodside will have a period of at least 180 days after the delivery of the seismic survey data to exercise that option." This statement, given what has transpired since, is both confusing and troubling. But before I go any further, I acknowledge that I might be missing something, and if I am, I hope others here will enlighten me. With that caveat in mind, I will note, firstly, that in there is absolutely no mention of the delivery of a "seismic licence." Secondly, the phrase "at least" does not mean what most of us here have been assuming, which, again correct me if I'm wrong, "at most." To say "at least" leaves "at most" undefined, in a strict sense, even if mutually understood that "at least" actually meant "at most."

Further with regard to "delivery of the seismic data," we know that Woodside received the brute stacks last year, but only received the final data set circa the first quarter (i.e., around six months ago). Taking the above statement literally, the clock should have started ticking at that time. So far as I know, this additional condition of a "seismic licence" only popped up AFTER the final data set was received by Woodside. So I have to ask, where is this additional condition to be found? Has it been publicly announced and we all missed it somehow? If not, that is good question for the AGM.

So, all that aside, given that it is what it is, why does Woodside require a "seismic licence" at all, if they already have full access to the data? And from whom must they obtain this licence? Presumably it is the MME that must grant it, but to whom must they grant it, to PCL? Who then can transfer it to WDS? I, and others, have been presuming that WDS needs the licence in order to share the data with third parties seeking a participating or operating interest in WDS's 56% of PEL87. But does that make any sense? Galp opened a data room where many companies had access to the data they acquired.

Is the "seismic licence" an indication of transfer of ownership of those data? Who owns the data WDS acquired? The MME? If so, are they being asked to transfer ownership thereof to WDS as a condition of them taking up their exclusive option? If so, would this entail setting a precedent that MME is reluctant, or even adamantly opposed, to do? Did PCL and/or WDS not think all this through? This whole issue seems to have come at everyone from right out of left field. Is WDS using this as a stalling tactic, or is there some reason why they really need it prior to moving forward? Why has WDS been so reluctant to do much more than barely even mention their involvement in offshore Namibia to their own shareholders, let alone their multi-million dollar investment in PEL87 to date?

Whatever the heck is actually going on, PCL shareholders deserve answers! Answers that should be forthcoming prior to the AGM. If not, I think there's gonna be some serious 'splainin' to do.