DB,PSC's and there details,are contracts entered into by all...

DB,
PSC's and there details,are contracts entered into by all parties, including govt.
In APCL's Case they are a junior,but happened to hold a 90% stake in their 2 Gambia & 2 Senegal leases."90% not 15% like Far".aside from that little point,fence sitter's or not,they are protected by the details and remedy clauses in their respective PSC's in Gambia & Senegal.
So,when a dispute arises as to when one party is denied a "Cure" for said Breaches,and then is dismissed from their leases,without formal notification,then "Houston we have a Problem".
Its that simple.
The ultimate outcome of Tribunal hearing's is any ones Guess.
But PSC Breaches and dismissal's, must follow PSC guidelines on said Breaches, which they were clearly not followed.
And DB,as for the Far JV being able to retain all it's lease is "Dreamland",as for one it's already expired as per set out "exporation rules, extensions etc" in oil Code.
Hence the step out, Fan South and SNE north Wells,to increase the applied for "Exploitation Perimeter."

Kimbo21