Tensions bubble up at Woodside's Senegal oil project, page-287

I do not normally comment, but l am a large retail holder, and have been following the PE debate from the start. I am also a 30 year veteran of the industry. I have held FAR shares for a long time.

I have done research rather than rely on public comment by the Parties. The following is what I consider is likely:

1. Percentage of participation is all that matters. It can be held directly, company, trust, associate, wife ... it will be who controls the participation and amount thereof.
2. COP could sell to anyone whose “reputation is well established.” Presumably FAR met this criteria as COP had gone into the agreement having done their due diligence on FAR!
3. FAR right of preemption did exist.
4. COP needed to advise FAR of the terms and conditions of the bonafide offer by WPL. The “one pager” doesnt support “bonafide” or “materially same” as final agreement or something that could be “accepted.”
5. FAR had to exercise in the terms and conditions as per WPL - again, I don’t think WPL or COP make genuine offers on one page!
6. FAR could exercise for the full percentage as Cairn declined their pro rate share.
7. FAR within the 30 days was meant to exercise its right to preempt (it couldn’t as Per 4.), or give consent to the transfer (FAR didn’t, Cairn did)
8. FAR could then be seen as having refused consent, and had a further 30 days to provide reasoning. Failure to do so, meant that they were in obligation to acquire COP’s percentage on conditions identical to WPL and as had been accepted by COP.
9. COP did not attempt to resolve its differences with FAR within 3 months as dispute resolution clause, hence off to arbitration.

And just in hope; FAR have had a good chat to Total, found any side / parallel agreement WPL has with COP, and gained expert valuations then and now.

My opinion. Do your own research. I can only see a strong case for FAR to win.