Hi Aidan, Firstly welcome back, to correct your first statement...

Hi Aidan,

Firstly welcome back, to correct your first statement it you have posted to this forum 16 times (as per your profile, recently 15/05/2014).
To put it in simple terms the “social” factor is only one of a number of factors in my investment strategy and just like in 2012 when I “howled down” I will endeavour to howl down this argument again.
I have no issues with ones who want to put forward constructive arguments and supply information simply to those to make decisions on their shareholding, that what this forum is all about.
I do have issues with those who try and empower people to take action putting themselves at “risk” from a safety perspective or engaging in illegal activity (blockades, unsociable behaviour against a farmer who’s choice is to allow gas operations to take place on his disused quarry, even Benny Zable who fell off a unpegged tripod at Bentley sustained permeant ligament damage, your own daughter who was compelled enough to forge a fake press release, and list goes on)

Again I urge you and any others to consider the risks involved in engaging in these activities mostly illegal but putting at risk the of Metgasco employees, contractors, those indirectly affected and self-harm protestors.

I agree the government has the power to legislate whatever they want to but law makers and decisions makers will have to consider the large macro environment in doing so, in choosing to legislate against a one particular company it would put the microscope on the whole of NSW discouraging investment and introduced a degree of sovereign risk that had previously not existed. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you have to write a law for it to go away, how many more companies will be exposed to the “I don’t like this” (at a point in time) risk? Think about that point for just a moment…..

MEL move to take court action against the State government is quite a logical one, there is no doubt compensation is required to be paid by a poor government decision and according to Gilbert & Tobin, notes the ruling underlines the “…fundamental rule of law principles and highlights the importance of excluding political considerations from official decision-making”

I’m going to repeat that just one more ….excluding political considerations from official decision-making. To this date I have not seen anything from the government regarding why they should not renew PEL 426 when the OCSG has acknowledge the reporting producers were followed and due in Feb 2014, nor have I seen a PPLA 9 granted which was awarded in September 2012 fees paid. Now as a shareholder you would have to think what has the OCSG done in these last 7 years not to grant a license that was offered and accepted, and what has is a reason not to grant a license renew for PEL 426. These two points are the reason why MEL are going to court for a judicial review that IMO will uncover the woeful decision making process to again find in our favour. It’s too late to legislate because that horse has bolted another court win could take NSW further down the investment risk path, not to mention all the costs involved trying to restructure a poorly run government departments. $150m compensation will look quite attractive