I wanted toget everyone's thoughts on this matter:Please correct...

I wanted toget everyone's thoughts on this matter:

Please correct me if I'm wrong or misguided.

This is how I understand the outcomes fromAsset Energy Vs The Commonwealth Minister for Resources:

1. The legal principles in question pertain toprocedural fairness. Scott Morrison's appointment is separate from this, butsupports our case very very well.

2. If there is a settlement, approval is notautomatically a given. Generally damages are awarded to make plaintiff (AdventEnergy) whole again in regards to money lost in the act of pursuing for therenewal of PEP-11.

Which is most likely the costs associated withmeeting NOPTAs administrative requirement, e.g environmental report and soforth.

Effect of SharePrice

PEP-11 approval only effects the speculativevalue of BPH & BUY, however a settlement will have a very real and tangibleeffect on the value of BPH & BUY.

Below are my valuations for the share price based on the settlement value. The logic is straightforward. The settlement value is added to the current market cap and divided by the shares on issue. The only tricky party is that BPH owns 36% of Advent Energy and BUY owns 15%. Thus, the settlement values for BPH is 36% and BUY is 15%.

You can see that a $10 million settlement has a very small shift on the Share Price. I’ve chosen this value arbitrarily. Please note that I am unsure that the courts will consider opportunity costs. It seems unlikely, however anything could happen.

My question to you all is – What is the kind of settlementfigure should be awarded to Advent Energy? And will the court only consider theapplication costs in its damages or opportunity costs too?