Tensions bubble up at Woodside's Senegal oil project, page-227

Deja Vu DB.

I think this has been discussed before.



WPL were surprised FAR lodged a dispute notice and surprised FAR did not pre-empt in the initial 30 day period on the valid original notice.
i.e. WPL recognise that FAR had the ability to pre-empt the 35% WI as a JV participant on the original COP notice but did not do so. To claim this article supports your claim that WPL believe those rights never existed is untenable.

FAR's notice apparently has implied that they have rights to the WPL terms (WPL bought a company) to make their decision - WPL believe the share sale terms are not applicable for pre-emption - i.e. this is why he says "you cant pre-empt a company". They believe FAR could only PE the working interest but did not do so. The right to WPL company purchase terms is the PE rights WPL believe do not exist while concurrently (as per ASX announcement) recognising FAR had a 30 day opportunity to PE the WI and WPL were surprised FAR did not do so.

WPL believe that if FAR get another opportunity they will need to demonstrate technical and financial capability to get approval to PE. IMO FAR Gambia shows that FAR could make a reasonable claim they are able to act as operator (technical) , as to the financials FAR would probably not be able to get the money on their own, if they bring in a partner then that is a new PE event. All true but not directly applicable to the matter before the Arbitration IMO.

So it all comes down to compliance of the original notice IMO .....we shall see how the arbitrators view the issue soon enough.

And then hopefully we wont have so many deja-vu posts.