@FlambeauTo be fair, most of what you have written is a really...

@Flambeau

To be fair, most of what you have written is a really assumption based assessment.

- I cant seem to find the terms of the variation request and Bight Pet is a private company. So i havent been able to find any declarations to the market of what they are were proposing. So we don't know what they were varying. Hard to draw a conclusion from that on the validity of their request, it could be silly.

- Mr Patrick, an independent state senator, in no way is he involved in the nopta process. Just another pollie for a photo op. (shocking)
In any event, he said the effect of the decision was forcing Bright Petroleum to undertake the work program, which he in turn got partiatially incorrect. They don't have to drill the exploration hole until 2024 for EPP42, its a limited work program before July, but do have to for EPP41 for its first hole. We have no information available to see if this is going to be met or now.

really hard to draw any conclusion as these work programs both extend to 2024 so plenty of time for them to just submit an extension/ suspension to put them back on track. (which offers a significant difference to the PEP-11)

One thing i don't know is if they don't complete 1 of the exploration holes, does that mean they can't drill the others already approved in the work program? Is it sequential in nature for exploration holes? (i figure the survey and geotech is required)

In any event, i'm not sure how you can draw any conclusion from the refusal as there are 1000 more questions and no real answers except a news article from a pollie with no input/ access to the process (only drawing a conclusion that anyone that uses the Notpa website can make, not exactly #breakingnews)