Yes, that is my sense in this scenario. HQ contribute 75% costs, receive their 75% of return, or part thereof (depending on settlement detail). AGS project manage the venture.
Will HQ relinquish project management?
It is my guess that they will (or have) based on leverage applied by AGS re M&DC litigation, or at least relinquish the level of management control they now have, which has led to this mess.
As I've said before, HQ need to find a balance between obstinance and compromise. Even NB wouldn't risk losing a $3b asset through obstinance. He isn't wealthy by being stupid.
I also suspect that AGS project management is necessary for AGS to realise its fair share of further 'discoveries' on EL3666.
chart, page-49
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 46 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)