Sometimes it is what can’t be said that says a lot.When Maureen(Irish?) asked about the involvement of a major, and within her question, said Wes could not likely answer the question. Wes confirmed he could not answer that question.To my first point, when a person says he can’t answer that question by default he/she is acknowledging there is some merit to the question.If no major was lurking in the back round than Wes could have said there is no major involved with not.On the other hand if a major is involved and is providing protection and advice for the privilege of getting to see this unfold, as an insider, I would assume there is a non-disclosure clause that prevents Wes from saying something like, oh yah company X with 140 billion in market capital is on board/helping with exploration advice and with all aspects of moving forward.What NOT gets out of this relationship is a company X promises, by contract, that they will not do a hostile take over. The protection from other Majors is company X have insider knowledge and if we have the goods, this company X would never let another Major take us out cheap. This kind of relationship allows a, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. The hope of course is that at some point company X makes an offer supported by the BOD’s and management that we all would be very pleased with.
My second point deals with the TSX listing.Listening to the AGM, I thought it was clear that Wes, more or less, was admitting they were dragging their feet on this issue.It sounds like the NOT team would have to prepare and submit more reports with the TSX on the company’s activities if listed on the big board.Remember NOT is still a fairly small company and I think these extra man hours and dollars to file, can be better directed to exploration and building value.It may also be that by staying on the venture exchange keeps NOT a little more in the shadows and thus they are able to fly under the radar until the right time.This of course begs the question, why would NOT want, to fly under the radar?In order to answer this question, I have to go back to my, point one.If we have a major, company X, on board, and they are honourable in their dealing with us, and they are willing to pay fare value, they of course, like we all do, want to know what NOT actually has on their claims.Exactly how big is this?If the value of NOT shares were to fly too fast, and a second Major tried to come along and do a hostile takeover, and company X had to counter, company X may likely have to pay more for the resource than normal.We of course as retailers would love the price war, but from company X’s point of view this would not be their preferred scenario.JMHO
Now keep the faith
