There is a possibility that Tap Oils(Consolidated entity) legal...

There is a possibility that Tap Oils(Consolidated entity) legal liability is limited notwithstanding any successful claims against Tap (Harriet)joint venture.

Tap oil-the co we own- in turn owns scores of companies. It owns Tap (Shelfal) which has the jv with BHP in WA 351-P,Tap (Ghana) and so on and it also owns Tap( Harriet).

Tap (Harriet) in turn has the assets that comprise a % of the Harriet JV with Apache etc.It in turns has any contractual liabilities pursuant to that jv.In relation to burr up the liability would not begin for at least two more years and then is spread until 2030.At worst case prob max of 1-2m a yr but also Burrup have a duty to mitigate any damage by buying other gas if and when it become available .

Tap (Harriet) is also potentially liable for damages due to the Varanus Island explosion to alcoa but -if that is successful- every man and his dog that suffered damage will come a calling.

Lets assume the state of WA sues the harriet JV and wins what effect on Tap Oil the consolidated entity which is listed on the ASX? Unless there is a contractual link up to tap oil the damage is limited to the loss of assets in the Tap (Harriet) subsidiary.

If this is correct it means zola,wa 351,manor,ghana ,john brooks etc are/will be just as valuable to tap Oil notwithstanding Taps subsidiaries prob. A bankruptcy of tap (harriet) will be a loss of those assets.

Recently another listed oil co had its US subsidiary with a large debt overhang from a poorly thought out purchase.In their case the debt was renegotiated way downs the bank was aware that all they would get would be the US assets and nothing in the parent co. Would tap be any different?