ASX: "Should Advent be successful in the extension of its PEP11...

ASX: "Should Advent be successful in the extension of its PEP11 oil and gas exploration lease and MEC be successful in its appeal to reinstate its status as a PDF, ASX could consider conditions for reinstatement on the basis of continuation of MEC's existing business". ASX:MMR 22/06/2021

Makes sense to me. Otherwise, it would be like MMR operating a business which was never reviewed and approved by ASX for listing, for example, if ASX didn't stick to this rule it would allow ASX companies to swap from mining to banking or something else. ([I'm talking about business operations, not investments or equity management] to be clear, a company which has a PDF, then that same company losing that PDF, is a situation I liken to: a company drastically changing its existing business operations).

My interpretation of this is:
Requirements for ASX to consider "conditions" for reinstatement:
1) PEP11 approval
2) PDF ruling overturned.
Then I imagine the "conditions" would be something similar to:
3) complying with Chapters 1 and 2 of the listing rules with a demonstration of working capital etc etc.

I don't see the PDF status being overturned. This ASX:MMR announcement dated: 22/06/2021 marks a turning point in the company structure.

Great news for BPH though if PEP-11 gets approval, BPH will go through the roof, possibly because of MMR management having no choice but to go back to plan A which is to complete the inspecie-distribution.

The most fascinating thing to me is, is what is written here: "Should Advent be successful in the extension of its PEP11 oil and gas exploration lease..." I could write up a whole essay on just that quote alone. I have about 50 questions about this quote, but my understanding is and I assume what is happening here is that the ASX sees that the "gas exploration lease" has expired, and assumes that their business is finished. This is a flaw in the ASX analysis, as I assume if Advent were in year 1, 2,or 3 of the work program and the same thing was happening (a grossly overdue NOPTA decision) and the permit was not passed its "expiration date", then they might not have have said this.

I would like to see the whole letter from the ASX, not just this one paragraph...

Absolutely fascinating.