I'm all for MMR's reinstatement to trading, but ....Here's a...

I'm all for MMR's reinstatement to trading, but ....

Here's a negative to weigh up against the above rampers.

So NOPTA have to re-consider Asset's application for suspension/extension/variation to PEP11. The announcements weren't clear as to whether Asset had the right to supplement its existing application with new information (if there is any), though inference could be made that the Joint Authority just have to re-consider the application as it currently stands. Some circumstances may have changed since the original application, such as cash reserves, market sentiment, technical capabilities, capacity to raise further funds etc.

We know Labor isn't a fan of PEP11 from past comments made prior to the Fed election. We know they've been pretty coy on disclosing any opposition to it recently - rightfully so given the Apprehended Bias perspective granted in recent proceedings.

Given Advent's main shareholders BPH and MMR and GBA are all either suspended or have been unlisted from trading on the ASX, how do you think NOPTA and the Joint Authority will now consider the JV's, and specifically the operator's, financial viability? It seems a clear decision to me in the negative. Imagine something went wrong during drilling and the resources minister had to answer why they approved the title and subsequent operations given the very high risk of financial capacity to undertake the planned work programme at time of application. I'd bet arse-covering would be forefront in the mind of whoever makes the next decision on PEP11.

For the intended drilling, given the possibility that NOPSEMA may demand a back-up rig to be in the area to potentially drill a relief well, we're talking needing cash reserves of anywhere from $20m to $100m+, and/or an incredibly exhaustive and expensive insurance policy.

What drilling company would want to contract with Asset Energy (or its director) given the big basket of legal actions in its history?