Thanks for the quick trade for profit ladies and gents.Source:...

Thanks for the quick trade for profit ladies and gents.

Source: market depth, level 2, ASX:BPH, 23/08/2022.
52million shares at $0.001/share yesterday tells me this might be a baseless pump.

The news yesterday actually did not bode well for PEP-11, Scott Morrison's appointment as the Resources minister was deemed valid by the Solicitor-General’s opinion, 23 August 2022, "Mr Morrison was validly appointed to administer DISER on 15 April 2021" https://www.pmc.gov.au/news-centre/government/solicitor-general-opinion-validity-appointment-mr-morrison as per usual the company tried to counter this bad news by waving around the Environmental report (which was likely complete a long time ago, to announce it now, I believe is contrived).

Be careful, and I still predict a sub 1cent/share outcome after the MMR PDF decision and or the Federal Court case(s) is released: https://online.aat.gov.au/eCaseSearch/Home/Details?fileno=2021%2F3080 MMR was used as support for why Asset have the funds to fund Seablue-1, they mentioned MMR capital raises as part of their reasonings for funding, if MMR falls, this might affect Asset's case

Also, these pumpers clearly did not do their due diligence, if they read the court documents: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/WAD106/2022/actions they might come to learn even NOPTA themselves identified the reason preventing compliance and hence support for "extension" was not considered a "force majeure" the affidavit said: “…NOPTA did not consider the Applicant’s internal board issues and dispute with parent company MEC Resources Ltd as a force majeure circumstance in accordance with the Guideline…” and “The applicant has had adequate time to progress its work program, with a total of 54 months suspension and 42months extension approved since the renewal of the Permit in 2012.” 01-Jun-2022, Affidavit, Asset Energy Pty Ltd (Acn 120 013 390) https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/WAD106/2022/actions On this basis alone, the first application deserves to be rejected in my opinion. Also, this puts the second application in jeopardy in my opinion, as this proves they were not compliant just because of intra/inter-company **, the affidavit also acknowledged "COVID"... so the second application's force majeure may not be acceptable either.

Source: Spotlight - Member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid moves into his new office in West Gosford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX9C6QacbG4&ab_channel=CentralCoastCommunityNews

Dr. Gordon Reid explains that Labor's stance on PEP-11 has not changed even in light of the the Federal Court cases.
Source: Only Labor will stop PEP-11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxS-6hphdh0&ab_channel=AnthonyAlbaneseMP

Anthony Albanese says only Labor will stop PEP-11, it turns out that, that might be 100% true.

BPH's most staunch defender even believes this won't get off the ground:
63152781
63152956Source: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/WAD106/2022/actions

As for comments about "compensation" or a "settlement", this is not even a listed remedy for this Federal Court case, so no, not for this case. Even in a best case scenario, the applicant is asking for the decision to be quashed, voided, or returned to the Joint Authority to be reconsidered.

The Federal Court hearing is scheduled for 15/03/2023, I don't see this pump being sustained until then, especially considering the case for Asset doesn't look good (if you consider the Force Majeure reasoning, which NOPTA identified as insufficient to meet force majeure).