wa petroleum & geothermal register wa-360-p, page-43

Missed Wednesday's excitement, was enjoying myself on the golf course until I got home and found out about the suspension. I have not been able to catch up on Wednesday's posts, as there were so many, but have been following Thursday. I thought all my research on all of this was over as the announcement was going to be made and I might finally get part of my life back. If I have repeated anything from other posters, I'm sorry. I started off this with a reply to one of this mornings post, but as you can see I got a little bit delayed with all my research today.

Firstly I would suggest to ALL MEO, MOG, CUE holders, register with PGR (www.dmp.wa.gov.au) if you already haven't and have a read of the original farm in deal by MEO (North West as they R referred to in Doc's), Dealing No. 79SL/07-8, to Cue and Gascorp (Then Rankin Trend & then MOG).

I'm no insider & not Jurgen (Mum and Dad investor) these documents are available on this public register and can be viewed. This will give you a good understanding as to how this is all set up. If you have money invested I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading this over the weekend, instead of the Weekend papers. For people new to legal documents take your time.

I can't understand why MOG's response to their speeding ticket on Monday, 15th March, included, "the Company is not a party to any farmout transaction which Meo may be negotiating", this farm in document blows this away, as well as Meo's release yesterday which indicated, "The side agreements were executed by all parties on 5th March 2010, except for one......" (I think we all know this off by heart now) and this supports most posts, "Why are they both still trading?" ASX company Manager whom both announcements went too, needs to review their situation better for other investors about to get into this web. (Can't help mentioning this word but that is what it is.)

The words side agreements is very vague, but with my research today I don't like it. Have a read of what George Cohen's theory is. I don't want to alarm all but you should know, if you already don't. I haven't included links, but it's not that hard to find. You may not like what you read, as I did but lets hope this is not the case. Once again this is one person's theory.

This side agreement is mentioned in this farmout dealing with Meo and I believe it is the JVOA, (Joint Venture Operating Agreement) or JOA, which is quiet common in most deals, but is not public property and is not disclosed as same.


It's quiet obvious that there is something in there that JV or major holders don't like, or due to major holders (I'll explain later). Considering MOG is around 60% owned by Albers, there should not be any board squabbles and since he has so much at stake he would want this to go through. Refer Rankin Trend Divestment to MOG,( I'm sure it's in his best interest for the deal to be done.)

As I said I'll explain later, Cue's major holders are Todd Petroleum 27%, (Kiwi Co.) UOB Kay Hian Private, which I beleive is part of Singapore Petroleum, (which Petro China holds 45.5 % interest in, who in turn has CNPC as a controlling major holder) and Octanex, 6.3 % (Who is 70 + % ALBERS entities including Doravale.) Now MEO did say it was complex, (I would prefer WEB)
No views formed here RIO Executive's current case explains all, starting next Monday.
See Cue's March 2010 Presentation which is available on there web page.

This next part could also be an explanation, which is also supplied by CUE's March 12 2010, Presentation. This also blows out of the water MOG did not know about MEO's dealings as they highlight this, in that MEO are farming down to 20%. (REMEMBER THE ONE WEB INVOLVED IN ALL AND THE ORIGINAL JV Agreement) You will find this one, but the next one is the one that may be causing all of the problems. When you read the original farm in deal, it is mentioned not less then 5% and up to 10 % of well costs, for both CUE and MOG (Gascorp back then ). Yes I know they both have given a further 5% each to MEO for not committing $ to the drilling, and that is why the current holdings are as they are, but are they still committed to well costs, via the side agreement?

On page 13 of CUE's presentation I noticed a legend, the interesting part is,
+ MEO + 5% OPTION, now this + is clearly indicated next to WA-360-P and it's the only + on the map. Cue are listed as having 15%. (I HAD TO ZOOM IN TO SEE) My question to myself on seeing this, IS THERE A FURTHER DIVESTMENT OF 5 % to MEO after they drill?????? Remember the JVOA is not privy to parties outside the original JV agreement and maybe MAJOR SHARE HOLDERS have just found out!!!!!!!! or maybe CUE get + 5% option from MEO.

Also on figure 5 of Paterson's report dated 8.3.2010, See CUE WEB ,Listed in WA-360-P is CUE 20% which most would have thought was 15%. This has been supplied to Paterson's by CUE, worth a read as well. Also figure 1 appears same as above but this one has CUE 20% again with + Meo +5% Option next to WA-360-P. Any wonder everyone is confused. If this is all it is why couldn't they explain?

I've been through all the scenarios of this legend, ( +MEO + 5% OPTION ), Typo's ect..... but its clearly on this document. (Most CEO's would proof read this) Some one else may have a view, but remember it's over the side agreement, as to why the JV is considering it's position.

May be nothing as well or just confusion on CUE's part. These two figures have been supplied to Patterson's by CUE. Maybe CUE, before their Presentation may have changed the 20% to 15% but forgot to take away the + MEO + 5% OPTION. If they don't know whats going on how are we supposed to know. 5% is quite a big deal in the scheme of things. What are the correct figures??? CUE.

I've left the good news till last so when you walk away from this post you will still believe in MEO, as I do. Hopefully it dose not get to this.

This " OR NOT" mentioned in MEO's suspension to me is has put the rougue JV on notice. I'm hoping it was done before this, as mentioned in clause
13-1 of the original JV, (YOU REALLY HAVE TO READ THIS) is about disputes. My understanding is if there is a dispute, APPEA (Australian Petroleum Product & Exploration Association) appoint a technical expert. Their decision is binding with no appeal process. The problem with this is it takes 21 days from the notification date before anything can be done, so this may extend the suspension. (NOT A BAD THING FOR MEO, IMO) Having said this MEO has one other party signed already from there announcement, so in my view majority rules. 2 v 1.

Also according to original JV agreements and date extension given to MEO by JV till 31-12-2009, MEO has kept up to their part of the deal. Yes maybe the deal is better than expected and they want more. Sorry again I just can't remember all posters but this has been mentioned.


YOU NEED TO READ THE ORIGINAL JV AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION ABOUT THIS. READ ALL DEEDS executed on 31/10/2007.

ONCE AGAIN I AM JUST ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND APPLIED ONLINE VIA THIS SITE WHERE THIS INFORMATION IS STORED AND MADE AVAILABLE BY THEM TO US. THAT'S WHY I'M NOT CUTTING AND PASTING SAME. YOU HAVE TO TAKE YOUR OWN TIME, I'M NOT GIVING ANY LEGAL VIEWS ETC... AS I'M NOT QUALIFIED, BUT I DO HAVE A GREAT UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL ISSUES.

WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT JURGEN, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO THIS DEAL WHEN IT WAS DONE. I WOULD HOPE HE KNOW'S BY NOW, HE JUST CAN'T ANNOUNCE SAME, BUT I WILL FOR THE SAKE OF SHAREHOLDERS AND THE COMPANY.

HOPE THIS HELPS WITH SOME OF THE GAPS MAY BE CREATE A FEW MORE.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL WE STILL HAVE 70% ARTEMIS UNTIL 2011, OR UNTIL DEAL IS FINALISED. WE CAN COMMISSION A DRILL OURSELVES (WHICH HAS ALREADY STARTED) IF DEAL FELL OVER BECAUSE OF ROUGUE JV AND WOULD STILL B IN ACCORDANCE OF THE ORIGINAL JV AGREEMENT AS LONG AS DRILL B4 2011.

JUST REMEMBER WHERE WA-360-P IS, PLAN B WOULD NOT B THAT HARD, CHEVRON, WOODSIDE, BHP + OTHERS ?????

TROJAX AND BLURRT U HAVE TO GO TO BED, UNLESS U WEST COAST, E COAST 1 AM THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE KNOWN TO BOTH. U SEEM TO KNOW A LOT.


(It's all out there, yes it takes time, but when your hard earned $$$$$ are invested have a read of the documents.)

FORM YOUR OWN OPINION THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. JUST TRYING TO FILL IN MY GAPS AND YOURS.

JUST READ YOUR POST PETER600, THAT COULD FIT IN WITH THE PETRO CHINA THING I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT CUE MAJOR HOLDER. HOPE THIS IS THE CASE.

REMEMBER ALL THIS RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE ON THE INTERNET SO SOME PAGES I HAVE GOT MY INFO FROM MAY BE OUTDATED.

As I said before a lot of this may already be known to some, but not to others.