(a) They are different jurisdictions. How is it relevant? Well I didn't 100% agree that it was, I said "which may or
may not affect the decision". Whilst I understand the guideline I quoted literally says "publicly available Titles Registers...under the OPGGS Act" which only refers to NOPTA permits, I still think if there was health, safety or environmental incidents at EP386, this may be highlighted by NOPTA as alluded to in 1.4, so I don't consider it a stretch to view EP386's outcome as a negative on their record which may or may not be at least noticed by NOPTA.
I said, EP386 would drain resources and as I alluded to, reduced resources might reduce the entities ability to maintain all work activities I said: "may or may not affect the decision of PEP-11’s
future regulatory applications." You might remember that when BPH did it's capital raise in early 2021 and a journalist incorrectly attributed the capital raise to Bonaparte I made my objections very clear, as I realised at the time it would have a serious impact on PEP-11's permit holder's ability to finance its work activities.
(b) Past performance is considered, this is not debatable, I think you have even said it yourself, "use it or lose it". If you want it to be unambiguous for whether or not it is referring to suspension/extensions, than here you go: "2.7 The Joint Authority considers the
work program as a whole when reviewing a
suspension or suspension and extension application." Offshore Petroleum Exploration Guideline: Work-bid, in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2015)
http://www.nopta.gov.au/_documents/guidelines/Offshore-Petroleum-Exploration-Guideline-Work-bid.pdf Regardless of whether or not you think 1.39 relates to acreage release or existing permits, past performance is definitely considered as further evidenced by 2.7 and from the previous NOPTA rejections of EPP41 and EPP42 "A spokesperson for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources said" ... "The Great Australian Bight is a remote, frontier area, and as such, the joint authority makes an informed, evidence-based decision
about the progress of exploration in such areas." Assuming "progress of exploration" is synonymous with "performance".
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-13/bight-petroleum-knocked-back-great-australian-bight/13152290But just for fun, let's say you are right, and my "inferences" are completely wrong, John Barilaro didn't care, instead he voted it down, Scott Morrison didn't care, instead he said "I think I made it pretty clear what my Government's view was about that. I mean that will go through processes, but I’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that that’s not something I support..."
56419510 so even if you think I have not interpreted the NOPTA protocol correctly for PEP-11, it seems John Barilaro, Scott Morrison and potentially the Labor Party will not either. Which brings up an interesting point, how do you reconcile your comment about the Labor party not reversing their position and what you just wrote, "My view is that there are no grounds for over-riding the NOPTA recommendation whatever that is (of course I believe it is a YES)." Do you think the Labor party will reject the PEP-11 application if they win the election and if Keith Pitt failed to decide on the application before losing Government? Because logic would follow that if there are no grounds for over-riding the NOPTA recommendation as you suggest and yet you also suggest "it is implausible they would reverse their position" then what do you think would happen in that hypothetical scenario?
