Thanks, I added the "c" to the one word you were talking about, it was a typo, thanks.
source: extract from: Guideline: Applicant suitability (includes greenhouse gas storage titles), 2/03/2022, https://www.nopta.gov.au/_documents/guidelines/Applicant-Suitability-Guideline.pdf
If Zali was the resources minister, she could use "financial resources" and "other matters prescribed by regulations" (public interest - extreme levels of public protest/opposition) to reject the application. In the NOPTA 2020 report they declared that "
NOPTA assesses that Advent Energy does not currently have the financial capacity (as at 31 December 2019) to meet its estimated share of the current work program activities and is reliant on securing future source(s) of funding in support of the work program" source: 29/04/2020, Application for a variation and suspension of work program commitments and extension of permit term- Petroleum exploration permit NSW/PEP-11. Australian Government, National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator.
As for the force majeure, NOPTA in 2020 said it did not meet the criteria for force majeure, they essentially said all companies have the risk of internal dispute, so they disagreed with that being the basis for the application. "
NOPTA does not consider Asset's internal board issues and dispute with parent entity MEC as force majeure circumstances as outlined by paragraph 2.13 of the Guideline." source: 29/04/2020, Application for a variation and suspension of work program commitments and extension of permit term- Petroleum exploration permit NSW/PEP-11. Australian Government, National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator. Then if you read the advice from 31/01/2022, "
The guideline describes circumstances which usually constitute force majeure, the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to meet those criteria and therefore should not be treated as such. The internal company issues quoted by the Applicant are common risks in the industry and do not support reasons for a suspension and extension of the conditions on the title. Corporate restructuring is also not grounds for failing to carry out activities under a petroleum exploration permit within the approved period." source: 31/01/2022 [it says 31/01/2021 (this is a typo)], Application for a variation and suspension of work program commitments and extension of permit term- Petroleum exploration permit NSW/PEP-11.
Additional advice following notice of intention to refuse. Australian Government, National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator.
If you want to know more about the guideline, you can access it here:
https://www.nopta.gov.au/guidelines-and-factsheets/offshore-petroleum-guidelines.html and here:
https://www.nopta.gov.au/_documents/guidelines/Offshore-Petroleum-Exploration-Permit-Guideline.pdf particularly 5.26 of the guideline.
The most bearish thing about all this is all the long term bullish users have been saying "nothing has changed" in respect to the 2020 NOPTA advice, if it were true.. then that is actually bad, because if NOPTA write the exact same 2020 report (not force majeure, and they don't have financial capacity etc again) then there are legal reasons to reject in my opinion. If the reasons for rejection did not form a legal basis, I believe Asset Energy would have added this as an argument in the Federal Court.
The longer this goes on, the more likely I consider this once again becoming a political hostage, and they may just be preparing legally to make sure their decision is water tight. The biggest problems are 1) financial capacity, and 2) public opposition, putting the matters of force majeure aside, I believe the government could reject the application just based on financial and public interest reasons alone.
The 2019 guidelines also say they need to satisfy financial capacity:
source: extract from
Offshore-Petroleum-Exploration-Guideline-Work-bid-after-July-2019.pdfIt was a horrible argument by you. Putting aside the fact that no matter which guidelines you use, it will always backup what I said above. The core problem with your argument is the guidelines are merely a reflection of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. Which means unless the act itself changed in reference to anything I have written today, no matter which guidelines you use, it should have been the same since 2019 for the points we have discussed (I understand there have been amendments to the act since 2019, however, there was always a reference to financials).
"On the element of Force Majeure, I refer to the Pathfinder precedent." source:
71368826. What Justadabble is talking about is where the court said the joint authority was inflexible with the criteria for approval. However... in this case you have the regulator, NOPTA saying the application for PEP-11 did not include a valid force majeure (see above quotes from NOPTA), therefore I believe the court would side with the Joint authority in that scenario.
So once again... if NOPTA say the exact same thing they said in 2020, or something like 1) that BPH's entities do not have the financial capacity and 2) the reason for extension e.g force majeure was not valid. Then the joint authority are in a prime position to reject in my opinion, with basis to do so.
