AFR Articles, page-121

"I interpret that WPL have proof of current ownership, but they are worried about certainty of that ownership in the future."

It's Friday - perhaps we can all agree that WPL is concerned about their future participation in SNE, and that they will continue to participate in SNE until officially advised otherwise.

Just a few comments on the four scenarios presented:

1. "If FAR drop the case, WPL remain"
This may have been a possibility earlier, but the chance of it happening now is zero. (IMO)

2. "If the case drags on for 5 years, WPL remain until then"
Yes, theoretically... unless, due to a lack of clarity on lease ownership, internal approvals are not forthcoming and WPL is therefore unable meet its ongoing JOA commitments. (IMO) Crunch time is approaching - let's see what happens. No pressure for FAR.

3. "If FAR lose, WPL remain"
Indeed. Alongside FAR I might add (assuming no TO subsequently ensues), and possibly joined by our oily mammoth just over the fence on the 'wood-free' side.

4. "If FAR win but ICC decide a compensation payment is appropriate then WPL remain"

FAR have initiated arbitration to seek declaratory relief on their right to PE. As FAR as I understand it, it's either a YES (you have the right to PE) or NO (you don't have the right to PE) outcome - no award (incl. a compensation payment) will be made. If FAR lose, we bite our tongues and proceed to Scenario 3 above; if FAR win (what a glorious day that would be!), WPL will be promptly shown the door and up to 35% will be on-sold to big oil (IMO).

Enjoy your weekend all - 7 weeks until spud and plenty of potential news flow before then!

gh.