is what I said wrong? What’s more likely?1. NOPTA just hand over...

is what I said wrong? What’s more likely?
1. NOPTA just hand over an approval they were going to 1-2 years prior
2. NOPTA go through the process again to ensure BPH is in the same position when the approval was actually given

Because I think NOPTA will take option 2 over 1 I am downramping? Common sense tells me option 2 is more likely, I think they will get it again but I do think it will be a process and not something that will just be handed to them.

I don’t think the court case is a walk up win either. If the case is based on procedural fairness then I would back BPH to win, the video above made it sound like they are appealing the decision based on Australia’s need for gas. I think the Bell Report is sits well with BPH (I won’t go into why, I’m sure it’s been stated). Things on the court case I have read from other journalists also sits well with me, I am trying to find the actual document submitted by BPH to the courts as what Breeze said they were going in with doesn’t sit well with me (or he is just giving a speech that sits well with shareholders). As I stated above ‘we need gas’ isn’t winning that court case.

Asking what the political feeling is about PEP-11 is not downramping either. If Justadabble had told me there was strong support I would not have argued, I still would have done my due diligence but having a chat on here normally leads to a place to start researching ie. the Bell Report. Just because I don’t post ‘it will get approved because we need gas’ doesn’t mean I’m a downramper, I don’t think this is an automatic ‘to the moon’ stock, they have a court case, it’s political and I think there will be a bit of time for approval. I am more interested in the political state of the matter and the likelihood of them winning the court case before I throw money back into it. I think they will get NOPTA approval but there are still 2 important ticks they need.