Crew I will leave my opinion on Pep11 incs future backed up by...

Crew I will leave my opinion on Pep11 incs future backed up by facts and advice from a real lawyer with experience in and specialist in the particular area of law that Pep11 Inc finds themselves in now, and moving forward.

And I suggest anyone with a decent spreed in Pep11 inc do the same imo. .

And don’t believe crew what underwater bush lawyers and burnt out regulators with multi nics post on Hot Copper to support underwater positions currently here on Hot Copper, because it’s all false scenarios and fallacies, and if you care to notice, from the email club on Hot Copper MMR and BPH threads up to last week Dutton was Pep11 incs last hope, but now that the ALP have been re elected with a majority, sadly Pep11 is dead in the water now moving forward, the SP,s of BPH and MMR could halve in 2025 and still be overvalued imo, especially MMR being so reliant on Pep11 now under its PDF.

DJM Wrote a post last week thats actually very similar to the legal advice I obtained last year crew, and like I said I suggest more shareholders do same or bare the consequences moving forward for Pep11 Inc imo.

https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/78906058/single

I doubt the ALP is worried at all. Neither the federal ALP or LNP want this project to proceed. Both rejected it.

Both sides of NSW politics don't want the project to proceed and have passed legislation aimed squarely at making life difficult for the permit.

The Newcastle city council and the Central Coast Councils have passed motions opposing it and don't want it.

Several state and federal members of parliament have opposed it.

The permit is the only one in NSW coastal waters. The press don't care about it and everyone just wants it to disappear except for the PEP11 shareholders.

Discovery in a Judicial review is very very narrow and i cant imagine what anyone thinks they are going to unearth that will be embarrassing to either government. You won't be getting to subpoena anyone's diary or meeting notes etc that's just a fantasy. Only documents that are tightly related to the decision making process.

Shareholders have tried and tried to stir press interest and simply no-one cares about it. The permit has been around since 1999 and has drilled one well which was a duster. Hardly anything has happened for the last 9 years so its hardly a national disaster.

There is no-one of substance advocating for this project. No minister or public figure and no large corporate with deep pockets and influence. No-one believes this can solve the country's energy problems and literally no-one wants it.

I'm sure it sat around on desks for years not because they are afraid of things coming out but because they all thought it would just die a natural death but David Breeze won't move on from it.

He forced their hand with legal action last year and here we are.

Asset/Advent will have to come up with a compelling argument and some very strong case law to get Justice Jackson to quash the decision and send it back to the JA. I just can't see what that is and people i have spoken to can't see it either.

I just can't see what the basis of the challenge is if you sweep away the emotion and blizzard of hope from shareholders and look at the bare bones.

Take out the feelings of being shafted and look at the reality of the fact that the company received 4 extensions and 5 extra years and didn't get things done. The company doesn't have significant financial depth or infrastructure and literally no-one wants the permit to be extended.

Maybe the legally inclined amongst the shareholders can turn their research towards case law. it would be a better use of time and give a more relevant discussion than Justice Jackson is waiting to right all the wrongs and see the injustice and quash the decision. That is not realistic.

people have to put the merit based arguments out of their minds or they will be disappointed because its not litigation where both sides present their cases and the judge decides. We are asking for a review of the decision based on flaws in the process or legalities of the refusal reasons NOT on the subject matter.

As i said i believe it is a tremendous uphill battle and not the shoe in that is the common belief her.

cheers