Crew to ignore reality in the Pep11 outcome is a recipe for disaster investing in the oily pennies imo since January 2025 when the Federal government of Australia backed by NSW state and all electorates surrounding the Pep11 Supported and endorsed the Pep11 tenement Exploration licence Denial in January 2025 .
The chance of PEP11 ultimately being approved (i.e., the exploration permit extended/varied and the project proceeding) through the current Federal Court judicial review is low—likely well under 20-30% overall, and realistically closer to negligible in practical terms. This is a highly speculative assessment based on the legal process, political context, and history; no court has ruled yet, and judicial review does not guarantee (or even directly provide) approval.Quick background on PEP11 and the denial
PEP11 (Petroleum Exploration Permit 11, also written PEP-11 or PEP 11) is an offshore petroleum exploration title in the Sydney Basin, in Commonwealth waters off the NSW central coast/Hunter region (between Newcastle and Sydney). The joint venture is operated by Asset Energy Pty Ltd (100% subsidiary of Advent Energy Ltd; ~85% interest), with Bounty Oil & Gas NL (ASX: BUY) holding the balance (~15%). BPH Energy (ASX: BPH) and MEC Resources (ASX: MMR) have indirect stakes via Advent.
• The title has a long, contentious history involving delays, prior court action (settled 2023 after a successful challenge to a Scott Morrison-era decision on apprehended bias grounds), and strong community/environmental opposition (e.g., marine impacts, proximity to coast).
• On or around 17 January 2025, the Commonwealth–NSW Offshore Petroleum Joint Authority (under federal Industry Minister Ed Husic, Albanese Government) formally refused the joint venture’s long-pending applications (lodged 2020 and 2021) to vary/suspend work program conditions and extend the permit term. NOPTA (the titles administrator) had recommended approval, but the Joint Authority cited public interest, concerns over the applicants’ cost estimates, and ability to fund the work. NSW also supported refusal and later legislated a ban on offshore oil and gas activities in state waters.
Current status of the judicial review (as of April 2026)
Asset Energy (as operator) filed an originating application for judicial review in the Federal Court in February 2025, seeking to quash/set aside the refusal and have it declared void. The grounds are under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)—standard administrative law challenges (e.g., jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, irrelevant considerations, or unreasonableness).
• A preliminary procedural hearing occurred in September 2025 (Justice Jackson ordered the matter heard in the Sydney registry; reasons at 2025 FCA 1163).
• The substantive two-day hearing was held on 20 and 23 February 2026 in Sydney before Justice Jackson. Both sides made written and oral submissions; the matter is now reserved for judgment (no decision or reasons have been delivered or published as of 10 April 2026).
No further ASX updates or public reports indicate a judgment has been handed down. Federal Court judgments are typically published promptly once delivered, so the case remains live and undecided.
Why the prospects of approval are low
Judicial review is not a merits review or appeal on the policy merits of gas exploration. The court can only examine whether the Joint Authority’s decision-making process was lawful. Even if the applicants win:
• The court would most likely quash (set aside) the January 2025 refusal and remit the applications back to the Joint Authority for fresh consideration “according to law.”
• It does not order approval or extension of the permit. The ministers could (and, given the political context, likely would) refuse again on refined grounds that address any identified legal error.
Key factors weighing against success or ultimate approval:
• High bar for judicial review success: Ministerial decisions under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) involving “public interest” are broad discretionary powers. Australian courts rarely intervene unless there is a clear legal flaw (e.g., failing to consider mandatory factors or Wednesbury unreasonableness). Success rates for such challenges are generally low.
• Strong, bipartisan political opposition: The current federal Labor government issued a preliminary refusal in 2024 and finalised it in 2025. NSW Labor supports refusal and has banned similar activities in state waters. Community and environmental groups have celebrated the denial.
• Practical barriers even if remitted: Any renewed approval would still require separate environmental approvals (e.g., from NOPSEMA), seismic/drilling consents, and face inevitable further legal/community challenges. East Coast gas supply arguments from proponents have not swayed the current policy stance against new offshore fossil fuel exploration near populated areas.
• Historical precedent: The 2023 court win only achieved a reconsideration, not automatic approval—the 2025 refusal followed that process.
In short, the judicial review gives the proponents a procedural “second chance” at the decision table, but the substantive political and policy headwinds make actual approval of PEP11 (and any meaningful exploration) highly improbable. The permit itself remains in a suspended/uncertain state pending the court outcome and any further steps.
For the absolute latest, monitor ASX announcements from Bounty Oil & Gas (BUY), BPH Energy (BPH), or MEC Resources (MMR), or the Federal Court’s judgments database. The situation could change quickly once Justice Jackson delivers reasons, but the fundamentals remain challenging for the project.
Ignore the obvious at your peril imo Crew !!!
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
