Scomo was a Resource Minister., page-348

@Bravo77
My apologies, after reading every word in the Affidavit, I can confirm it does say something similar to that, it says the decision is in conflict with the recommendations. Which tells me the original FOI applicant, had their unredaction request approved by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), and they must have given this to the applicant (Asset Energy) sometime before the 22/01/22. I take issue with "we all knew this was the case - except for Flambeau", I was the one who identified that NOPTA sent the Joint Authority a template for approval in the freedom of information request, last year.. lol... I even said this means I think they did recommended to approve it, I repeatedly told you and others that the Joint Authority may not make their decision solely based on that, and as it happened, they didn't agree with it for many many reasons.

The NOPTA report/recommendations are not in the court filings.

@Justadabble
The court documents also answer so many questions.... like 1) consequences of late lodgement (not within 60 days), 2) what the force majeure is, 3) what the force majeure is likely to be for the second application, 4) It also already has a back and forth about the NOPTA recommendations... 5) compliance was an issue, the respondents identified where NOPTA said "future" applications for extension etc will have more scrutiny (probably because ongoing extensions are frowned upon), 6) the respondents did consider the capital raise in 2021, they did consider the NOPTA recommendations and disagreed with them, they did consider COVID-19 in this "amended" first application... etc etc... according to the affidavit.

I believe the biggest problem is the force majeure, and I believe the respondent is correct with their assessment of it (even NOPTA thought it was "not a force majeure", then for some reason, they decided it was okay anyway... lol... not sure how that makes any sense), and I just don't see how they will succeed with the second application, especially since they already used COVID-19 in this first application.

There is also evidence that the respondents are trying every trick in the book to win, like picking up on every error as they did in the genuine steps statement, etc etc... So my theory about Labor potentially throwing it and making the decision themselves is probably not their plan A in my opinion.

David Breeze admits what the true intentions of the $9million was from January 2021....

Anyways, good luck everyone, I feel like I have come to a satisfied ending with my involvement in the BPH saga, I believe I now understand how everything went down and it's likely ending.

Good luck to everyone, hope you all succeed with your trading and investing in the future.