So, here is the questions everyone should be asking, Why is BHP...

So, here is the questions everyone should be asking,

Why is BHP still pursuing it's interest in SC59 and walking away from SC55.

Why is the financial agreement and penalty for BHP pulling out of SC55 DEPENDANT on Otto retaining SC55?

Surely any PENALTY for BHP pulling out of SC55 should be "Because they pulled out" AND NOT BE dependant on anything else, especially since the agreement seems to favour the company that may have put the service contract at risk in the first place. It isn't rocket science, and I would like to know the reasoning for this.

Perhaps we should all be asking our ex BHP executive Gregor Mcnabe why he allowed the agreement to be written this way.

Perhaps EJ Pert could ask and inform us.

If anyone here would like an explanation as well, Give this a thumbs up, and let's see the reasoning behind this and show we won't be kept in the dark and feed mushroom fodder!.