This article is understandably causing some angst for the...

This article is understandably causing some angst for the facebookers, however, when you pull it apart, 99 per cent of it is merely grafted or inferred from the various press releases, including ours.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/hardc...woodside-cut-deal-but-far-ltd-has-other-ideas

Absolutely the only new bit is this idea that CNP's lawyers say Senegal prefers WPL rather than some rag-tag bunch of also-rans to whom FAR will be flogging off their opportunistically grabbed 50%. So many things stink about this.

"Upstream understands that ConocoPhillips’ lawyers were “strongly advised” on 12 October that state oil company Petrosen preferred Woodside entering SNE compared to a weaker line-up of farm-in candidates proposed by Far, had the Australian junior succeeded in securing the US player’s stake and then offloading it."

Firstly, that classic refuge for journalistic scoundrels: "Upstream understands". How many levels of weasel are here? Lo, it's not even the two writers who are willing to put their necks on the block as to veracity (isn't Barry Morgan some frightful satirical figure of a comedian?), it's this non-existent, non-individual entity "Upstream" who may have it wrong. Speaks volumes about their confidence in the information.

Secondly, we're going to believe the words of the lawyers of one of the parties to an increasingly toxic war?? Yeah right.

Further, again with the weasel words re: this great pronouncement on 12 October - how can a non-individual entity advise anyone of anything?? Who actually formed the words? Not so much as the mention of a representative or spokesperson. Was it a junior executive? Or was it the mail room guy? Or was it a figment of a CNP lawyer's fertile imagination?

Finally, "weaker" in what sense? Merely that it's numerous entities instead of one? That doesn't mean it's not Total.

At least it's proof positive that we have a plan in place and friends waiting in the wings.