Hi Cujo. I take a different view on most of your points. If as...

Hi Cujo. I take a different view on most of your points.
If as everyone here seems to think the 60 days passed so the deal is all good, then answer me why WPL felt the need to release that they had received word from the gov. on participation, 8 months later??
I think it was because WPL asked for some form of guarantee that they would get paid for what they have contributed since the deal went down.....just in case it falls over as the PSC requires everything to continue regardless of any dispute.
If as FAR says WPL require gov approval, and WPL have not denied this, then the above makes sense to me.
Can the egg be unscrambled......I don't know, but its probably a moot point because it seems that the arbitration panel will decide what happens.

Lots of questions re DJ.
My take is that FAR were prepared to farm in, all the language from the company before 31 October was positive but something happened.
I personally don't think it has anything to do with FAR but a lot to do with whether the lease is in good standing. Why do I think that? See below. Seems it might have more to do with government approval than anything else??

I don't believe the announcement about the article was at all ambiguous. Clear clean cut statements IMO.
If FAR had been issued with any paper work or been asked to attend court then IMO they would have released it. They have never failed to update the market in the past. AIMO DB