I completely disagree that the counter arguments are...

First 24 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Justadabble

8,471 Posts.

2866

27/02/22

21:06

Post #: 59856486
Share

Originally posted by Flambeau: ↑

@Justadabble All “counter arguments” I have read were never sufficient to overcome the problems, as evidenced by the current JA decision on the January 2020 application.

Point 3 isn’t missing, the official statement I linked did include it, it literally came from the Prime Minister’s mouth, and is written into the transcript. I believe the “official” statement you are referring to was the summary of the event posted before the transcript was released. Therefore, I don’t think it was conceded.

Even if Keith Pitt loves gas and wants to support gas projects, that is obviously insufficient for the purposes of “counter arguments” and assessing the NOPTA application. I have never seen Keith Pitt say Advent has financial capacity (instead I note that he made it even harder for NOPSEMA to assess finances), I have never seen Keith Pitt say Advent were compliant with previous work requirements, and I have never seen Keith Pitt counter the Prime Minister’s public statements on the force majeure, so no, I disagree with your last point.

Expand

I completely disagree that the counter arguments are insufficient. In fact, I would put it to you that the PM concocted his position for political purposes as they are primarily subjective. The one item that isn't subjective is the financial capacity as IMO NOPTA were satisfied. Don't confuse the cost of the CCS depth, it doesn't form part of the permit so is outside scope. Part 3 is missing from the PMs statement on his parliamentary website, you think that is an oversight?

MMR Price at posting: 0.4¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
2 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply