Thanks for the response , Prospekt
Just to clarify this. They didn't need to spend the 4X expenditures if they chose that option. They could have spent, say the $15 million they did last year drilling, and then walked. They would have lost their option, but if they decided it wasn't worth it then they could have spent less money than they did when paying us the first $20 million.
I never looked at it that way before and that is a valid point - they wouldn't have to spend all of the 4x on the property before walking.
At least we would have gotten all their Liard shares and 100% ownership of the property back if they didn't make a quick production decision though. Currently, they have full control and could shelve this for decades (not saying they would, but could as we are talking hypotheticals here) and retain their Liard shares and 75% ownership for the 20 million paid to us so far and their 2013 drilling costs. Did they actually spend $15 million for 2013's drilling?
They could have chosen the 75% option and drilled for two years and then bought us out.
Personally, I would prefer this option to what we have now. I know others may feel differently and that's ok. We don't need to agree.
What they did was commit to paying us our (*)25% share of that 4X expenditures up to the point at which they build the mine. That seems to show a great deal of confidence in the project and it was a surprise to many analysts.
Yes, (*)with a production decision. If the production decision is delayed or shelved all we get is 25% of the 85 million or so we spent exploring the property and generating the BFS (and 25% of the shelved project).
I think they will develop the property (why I haven't sold any shares) but it isn't a sure thing and that is why I think we are trading where we are. Do you have any info on what analysts were suprised? I would like to read up on what those analysts had to say. Even the names and I can google it...
What they got by going directly to the 75% ownership was control. There were cheaper ways of achieving the 75% ownership, but not any that gave them the operator control. That has to have been important.
I don't know if I agree about cheaper ways, as 20 million plus a 2013 drilling program exploring a property that they own 75% of anyways is an incredible bargain to disolve the Salazar contract. Cheaper if they walked - but at least we would own 100% of the property and their Liard shares. I think also a better option for us IF the project is shelved. I pray it is not.
