BPH (ASX) SP to rocket on 12/02/2021

Originally posted by Flambeau: ↑

Contrary to popular belief there is also a chance the second application gets rejected, for exactly the reason Kansaskiwi showed us: “On the other hand if the application is refused, the titleholders will be in non-compliance in relation to the Permit Year 4 work program commitments.” -NOPTA 50641754
Or more specifically:
What non-compliance did BPH’s subsidiaries have I hear you ask? They did not comply with their 4^thand 5^th year commitments: They did not drill and they did not do a 3D seismic survey. (notice when the drill was expected to be completed:13/02/2019 to 12/02/2020 [was this during the pandemic? more on this later]).
People are saying nah,can’t be rejected blah blah COVID blah blah, but… when you sit down and think about it, these are the facts:
The outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020, and a pandemic in March 2020. https://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/COVID19_pandemic#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic,pandemic%20in%20March%202020.
Two areas of flexibility are on offer from the “additional flexibility for exploration permits”. "Where titleholder work programs have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the joint authority regards the COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure event in relation to sections 2.13 and 2.15 of the Guideline. Commerical circumstances as described in 2.15 of the Guideline can be used as force majeure. Section 2.14 of the Guideline ordinarily requires an application to include “substantial and compelling documentary evidence to demonstrate how the force majeure circumstance has adversely impacted the ability to complete the work program…” “Demonstration of resource constraints (financial and/or physical) and/or changes to contractual arrangements with third parties (i.e. the inability to secure a staffed vessel) will be sufficient.
I don’t see how any of the following situations applied to PEP-11’s year 4 work program conditions which ran from 13/02/2019 to 12/02/2020 (all before the Pandemic was declared by the WHO). The most optimistic approach would be to say they had 13days from 30/01/2020 to 12/02/2020 (25^th of January was when Australia had its first COVID-19 case https://www.sbs.com.au/news/it-s-been-one-year-since-australia-s-first-covid-19-case-here-s-what-our-health-workers-have-learnedwhich means Australia had not even entered an epidemic phase by the 25^th January) when there was Coronavirus in the country, I think they are fighting an uphill battle if they are trying to prove the Coronavirus effected them so much that they couldn’t carry out any of the below functions from 30/01/2020 to 12/02/2020 because of the Corona Virus:

3. Furthermore, but less importantly, the first application was made on either the 29/12/2019 (as NOPTA displayed all of last year) or on the 23/01/2019 as NOPTA now shows. I will use 23/01/2020 as the date of submission for the first application. Just speculation, but it would be funny if the company was trying to make it look like their application was made as close to the pandemic as possible. Maybe they paid the application fee on the 23/01/2020, which is entirely plausible and therefore not an apparent contradiction.

Expand

I get your idea but one thing you are missing is how the pandemic has shifted our requirements, Pre-covid was a different time and in particular it was one were other industries were functioning without restrictions from external forces. For example China's reliance on Aussie minerals and coal, but with covid came escalating tensions and restrictions that has changed how the market will go forward. There is little doubt that covid has expadited China's efforts in forging new avenues for the raw products it needs, this has resulted in a huge cut on the life expectancy we will get from coal making it less appealing to mine it. Gas has a longer future going forward in comparison, the need has changed and thus I believe exceptions to meet the expected demand will need to be made, if this means handwaving a few contractual breaches I don't expect it to be as big a issue as you would think. Obviously its my opinion, but shutting down such a perfect source of energy when it would be better to take control of the situation and ensure its guided to the desired outcome. IE: A plentiful cheap energy supply for the east coast of Australia.