The following is not an opinion on right and wrong but just a...

The following is not an opinion on right and wrong but just a window into how most JV run.

The operator of the permit performs technical work - which is charged to the JV. They provide budget and forward program information to alert the JV to future works/spending. They summit well locations and the attendent AFE fairly close to when the well is to be drilled since information (seismic/drilling) catalyzes new location and if they are prospective the operator wants to get after it right away.

All this is open and transparent to the JV and most of it gets transmitted to the market. Note however unsigned budgets and well approvals etc. make the operators opinion just their opinion since many issues have not been approved by a JV vote.

The non operating parties (in this case now only ITC) will have their own opinion and may even do their own technical work. They can also choose to suppliment information to the market or even contridict the operators opinion. Many times this can be a healthy thing - two heads are better than one and better prospects get drill from a bit of discussion.

The main reason JVs diverge is:
1. Cash flow - the speed and risk of the program is cash constrained for one but not the other.
2. Technical differences - in the case of a new (and what is said to be a stratigraphic play) type of field, the JV parties may have different takes on how to proceed
3. Personal Differences - principles in the company have private and even public lack of respect for each other.

My take on the situation here is that all 3 of the above apply.

The good news is that the last drilling flurry Growler 3-5 and Snatcher 1-3 was highly successful and it seems a new campaign - Growler 6 and 7 and then its less clear which wells - will kick off shortly. All the issues above tend to get sorted easily as long as oil is being found. If the last 6 wells were dry holes most of us would not be reading this forum.