announcment out , page-29

Kim,
just a few points in response to ur post:-

1.I fail to see how anyone is disregarding the original agreements when they are seeking to amend them so that's a poor choice of words on your part.

2.In relation to this comment:- "wouldnt you be annoyed if the guy you signed your deal with came back and wanted more.get real"

Where is the evidence that anyone is asking for more and what is the more they are asking for? Its all speculation/guesswork on ur part! Comments like get real don't belong in a mature debate.

In today's ann. CUE have said:-
"Cues 15% free carried interest in the Artemis 1 well will not be altered by the outcome of these discussions" so clearly no-one is asking them to give up part of their share.

CUE say that "in our view the proposed amendments disadvantage Cue" but at this stage we don't know how.

A number of posters have suggested that the likely point of contention could be that PF wants all the gas to be processed thru the proposed Artemis LNG facility but CUE may want it for a possible future Catarina LNG facility. This doesn't fit in with ur "we want more theory" but could fit in with CUE's perceived disadvantage view.

3.There is no compromise that MEO can make with CUE to sort this out. It's the PF that wants the amendments so the compromise, if needed will have to be made by either the PF or CUE, not MEO. MEO's role will be to find out if an appropriate compromise or solution can be found or whether the PF is prepared to continue with the Status Quo.

IMO your posts are strongly in support of CUE and not balanced as someone who would own both CUE and MEO. Maybe your MEO holding is only a token one!

BTW I happen to hold both CUE and MEO and my CUE holding is not token.

ANZ