johnfisher,I referred to that link previously under this thread...

johnfisher,

I referred to that link previously under this thread in my post # 6511797.

This was after matyd, in post #: 6511503 stated:


"I received a email [from BUY/Kelso presumably] last night to which I posted part of it. And I quote:

BUY has only one subsidiary namely Ausam Resources Pty Ltd. Any acquisition of a sub would be announced to ASX.

Our principal upcoming gas play is drilling Nyuni 2 in Tanzania and commercialisation of the 40 BCF at Kiliwani North 1 which is making material progress.


We are however interested (very interested) in shale gas. Any acquisition would be announced to ASX.

So I guess that shuts down that angle but its very refreshing that they took the time to answer my question."


So, BUY are "very interested in shale gas"...but, wait a second, did the Kelso private company structures negotiate an agreement with ADE and not offer the opportunity to BUY or, did the Directors of BUY knock back the offer and let the Kelso interests take over?

And, why did ADE sign an agreement with a $2 private Company committing that private Company to spend millions of dollars on a portion of drilling costs in ATP 855P in the Nappamerri Trough; then ADE spend millions in cash and shares to extinguish the right of Primary Petroleum to farm in thereby regaining 12.5% of the permit farmed out to ensure ADE retain their original 20%.

The original arrangement between ADE and Primary, when Icon was to hold 40% of the permit with Beach to get 40% farmin, the 12.5% right to farm in held by Primary, would give Primary a huge leverage to negotiate favorable terms with Beach or Icon by voting with either to have a controlling interest in the permit, perhaps even getting free carried for seismic and drilling if they voted with one or the other.

This leverage would disappear if Icon win the court case against Beach and retain 80% of the permit; $2 Primary would have to pony up the $$$$$$$ for the works - might be why they accepted the ADE extinguish offer.

Many scenarios that shareholders are not privy to but, until clarification by the companies involved, suspicion of nefarious activities pervades the atmosphere.

Are shareholders of either/both companies being fleeced?