I strongly suggest you:
1) read this case: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2021/4030.html?context=1;query=MEC%20Resources%20Ltd;mask_path=au/cases/cth/AATA#fn36
2) you may want to get and read the Federal Court Affidavit which you may very well do (now that it has been approved for public copy) you can do this by asking for it in accordance with "open justice" and r2.32 "Inspection of Documents" of the Federal Court rules 2011.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/court-documents3) Type pep11 into the hansard, set your date range, and look at the discussions:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Search?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=20B6B7A5&ind=0&st=1&sr=0&q=pep11&expand=False&drvH=0&pnuH=0&f=01%2F05%2F2020&to=21%2F08%2F2022&pi=0&pv=&chi=0&coi=0&ps=104) review the larger BPH threads which discussed pretty much all the details of the saga.
I am still waiting and watching for the MMR PDF decision (post:
62897441), which I think will have a rippling effect throughout the company structure. I also believe MMR was signed on as a parent "funder" for the purposes of keeping PEP-11 alive.
I have read your draft dot point list, this is my feedback:
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiGOVhUT4Jc which is where Keith Pitt said it is the size of a dining room table, “the well’s about the size of a dining room table”. It was also a part of the inspiration for this piece, which I thought was very good, you are free to use these images, the illustrator disclaimed all rights to the images in these threads: Post: 53934600
3: PEP-11 is not an “extension”, PEP-11 is a “Petroleum exploration permit” made up of 61 full blocks and 3 part blocks: https://public.neats.nopta.gov.au/Title/81775e2a-8d46-47f7-91c9-de6f10feca90 The baleen “seablue-1” target is not 30km south of Newcastle. The company itself said it is “30km SSW of the city of Newcastle”. (south south west) https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02364301-6A1028688?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4
4: “PEP 11 was first surveyed in 1981” https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Pages/offshore-petroleum-exploration-and-mining.aspx
5: Post:50410586
17: post this graph: https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/energy/gas-inquiry-2017-2025/lng-netback-price-series then find a quite a few quotes in regards to how much gas needs to be $/GJ in order for manufacturers to stay afloat, and you will discover this level of price is unsustainable, and businesses will go under.
23. The Ukraine/Russia war has caused a need for Australia’s gas, to prevent funding of the Russian war machine. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/uk-to-import-rare-australian-gas-cargo-as-energy-crisis-builds “UK to Import Rare Australian Gas Cargo in Latest Sign of Desperation”
24. The Federal Court case shows us (from the Affidavit 01/06/2022) that the Joint Authority’s decision to refuse the application included the consideration of the following evidence in relation to public opposition to the Permit:
A) The introduction of two bills in 2021 seeking to prevent any exploration within the permit, including:
I) The “offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage amendment (Stopping PEP11) Bill 2021’ sponsored by Zali Steggall OAM MP, the Federal Member for Warringah; and
ii) The “Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Fight for Australia’s coastline) Bill 2021’ sponsored by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Senator for Tasmania.
They also quote the “virtual town hall meeting” these were very informative from a protestor’s perspective, and had some crucial points in there: Post: 55428237, the pinnacle of which was Bruce Robertson’s (Energy Finance Analyst, IEEFA) presentation, most of his points are probably now undone due to the Russian war with Ukraine, and the world’s need to wean off Russia.
25. This point is the strongest point out of all the points.. “The applicants submit that the decision is in conflict with the recommendations made to the JOA in or about April 2020 by NOPTA. (reference FOI disclosure)” (01-Jun-2022, Affidavit, Asset Energy Pty Ltd (Acn 120 013 390) https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/WAD106/2022/actions
26. From a shareholder’s perspective, what pissed me off the most was the waiting time. We were told by Jason Falinski that the Government would not make a decision on PEP-11 during the lockdowns… this sounds political to me. They treated PEP-11 unfairly compared to all the other exploration permits that were given due process, see this post: 55659549
27. A question should be raised about the “applicants continued to pay all annual levy fees as invoiced and including the sum of $10,000 for the year 2021/2022” and other expenses as per the preparation of Seablue-1. At the very least the company is owed compensation for the time spent preparing Seablue-1 and paying fees whilst waiting for the secret and unfair (in comparison to all other permits) Joint Authority decision.
28. If the conditions of the permit deserve to be extended, then the grounds for refusal should be assumed to be false. The reasons were listed here: Post: 58351686 can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yiw-2Y6aCY Notice the Prime Minister said he is making the decision as the Prime Minister, but in his press conference recently he said he would tell us if he was the minister if he had to make a decision for that portfolio, essentially lying to keep his authority secret.
29. The Federal Court documents reveal that the Government lawyers are using “numerous local members, environmental groups, and the broarder community publicly stating their opposition to the Permit, including signed petitions and public protests and demonstrations”, the shareholders also sent Keith Pitt emails of support for PEP-11 and the gas led recovery, if they had known that Scott Morrison was the correct minister, they should have sent these emails to him, maybe he did not get the feedback from the shareholders. It is unfair to quote protestors in the federal court case, but not the supporters, (were these emails/letters to Keith Pitt ever considered by Scott Morrison?)
30. “An admission by an MP that the “looming” federal election influenced Scott Morrison’s rejection of a gas exploration permit will cause headaches for Albanese.” https://wwwdailytelegraphcom.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fgas-permit-appeal-in-jeopardy-after-nationals-mps-scomo-admission%2Fnews-story%2F914b02178bdaaea667bb33def972bca9&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-low-control-score&V21spcbehaviour=append
This is probably the biggest problem for the Labor’s federal court case at the moment. Asset Energy is trying to prove bias, and this might just be it. If they can subpoena Michael McCormak, and if he tells the truth, they might win.
31. Scott Morrison and Keith Pitt misled parliament on multiple occasions since Scott Morrison assumed the role of Resources minister for the sole purposes of ending PEP-11. Anthony Albanese said they asked questions in regards to PEP-11 to the Prime Minister, and he didn’t answer them and instead Keith Pitt or maybe even Angus Taylor did.
32. The Court case quotes “financial uncertainty”, which is ironic, because back when we thought the decision was going to be made, (as well as many of the Parliamentarians), the market cap for BPH alone was ~$120million+, which shows i) investors willing to invest in PEP-11 and ii) BPH alone could have potentially funded a $22million drill (I don’t think the drill would be $22million, even their last one in 2010 was not $22million). Also it is very ironic that they talk about finances, when they are responsible for a) delaying the project to suffocate the company, b) destroying the company’s value and reputation by rejecting the application (threatening cancellation), c) using PEP-11 as a political tool. (post: 53947075, you have permission to use these images in your work).
33. The Federal Court case quotes the NSW Government Offshore Exploration and Mining Policy February 2022, but admits this was received after the application and therefore not considered by the Joint Authority. PEP-11 is in Federal waters.
34. The crux of the Federal court case is to prove bias. The applicant’s show that Scott Morrison, Lucy Wicks, et. al. gave remarks similar to “guarantees” etc, before the decision was even made. Asset Energy suggest the Federal Joint Authority was “infected with bias” after publicly declaring PEP-11 over, and could therefore not consider the appeal without bias (they publicly declared their opposition to the permit before reviewing the details of the appeal). This was meant to be prevented by the Joint Authority telling NOPTA first, and then NOPTA telling the applicant, (NOPTA would have told the Joint Authority not to announce this decision publicly as it does not comply with the guidelines), since they disregarded the guidelines, Asset Energy may now have legal grounds to claim the Federal Joint Authority was “infected with bias”. https://www.nopta.gov.au/guidelines-and-factsheets/offshore-petroleum-guidelines.html
I have many more points, and I also have just as many bearish points, but I assume you don’t want to hear any of those…
I recommend you get @Justadabble to proof read your material before public release, as small details have often ended up causing great concern later on.
(20min delay)