joint ventures, page-81

hi folks,

further to the GSG and PXA debate, JH followed his first email up with a second and it shows that the GSG and PXA in principle agreement and any subsequent finalisation would have been an infringement of the terms of the CTP/PXA JV agreement. JH also can't guarantee that there wasn't a second stage process (IF there ever was a sneaky one) which CTP are/were not aware of that would have been an infringment of the terms of the JV.

i hope JH doesn't mind me sharing it but here it is and it helps us better understand the jv terms that QGC/BG have accepted and it puts a very big ? mark over the GSG Term Sheet, PXA and Martin Place Securities.

"I can not prove this one way or the other but I can say that under the
terms of the JV agreement, it is impossible for a party to farmin to the
CBM rights alone. PXA could only farm down a percentage of the whole of
its interests in each permit to a party and then only under certain
circumstances. I do not see that QGC would have allowed such an
agreement to remain in force even if it was (technically not allowable)
in place. So, I really don't know if there was a two stage process here
relating to CBM rights."

cheers