Email from Cath, page-107

Hi PhilW,
"So using the same logic as your above statement then that same jv partner should have no say in the jv operations! You can't have one and not the other. You are either a jv partner or you are not regardless of whether or not you are free carried. To put it another way, if COP or CNE decided to offload their equity in the jv prior to drilling Fan then using the same logic FAR being free carried would not have had PE rights."

It really boils down to what is written into the JOA, PSC and farmin agreements and who the respective parties are in the JOA, PSC etc etc.
We should be careful not to confuse the farm-in agreements , as would have been the case to facilitate the above when FAR farmed down to CNE and then a further farmin contract between FAR, CNE and COP. The farmin agreements would have stipulated that FAR will be free carried for the fAN and SNE1 wells. Flowing from the Farmin agreements would be a JOA. Who was party to the JOA?? Big question. I've not seen the operative JOA.
But before the farmin agreements and JOA came into existence there was a PSC which allocated a 10% stake to Petrosen. Does the 10% stake established by the PSC necessarily lead to the inclusion of Petrosen in any ensuing JOA... I think not.. Not sure.. From report issued by FAR it seems that Petrosen was not party to the farmin agreements... noting though that these agreements needed approval by the Sen Gov.

This from a FAR news release dated 19 March 2013:

"After the carried well, exploration costs will be apportioned Cairn 72.2% (WI 65%) and FAR 27.8% (WI
25%). Petrosen (the Senegal National Oil Company) will continue to hold a carried 10% WI through
the exploration phase in accordance with the Production Sharing Contract."

So the 10% was created by the PSC. The JOA may only be between FAR, CNE and COP.. the parties paying the bills. If only these three parties are mentioned in the JOA as parties and not Petrosen, then the PE rights created by the JOA will only fall towards the remaining participating parties.. i.e. FAR and CNE.

Alas .. we don't have a clue what the real facts are and its all assumption and guess work.
Could be that Petrosen has some or other "right" under the PSC which can be exercised or waived..
Are the facts getting entangled and mixed up in the "wash"?.. leading to confusing statements?.. perhaps.
That's it from me on the issue.. moving on.
Let's wait and see what washes out.

Oh!!.... AIMO