With respect I dont think your comments regarding dilution are correct.
The farm-in agreement dictates the percentage interest the two companies (Cohiba Minerals Pty Ltd [farmee] and Olympic Domain Pty Ltd [farmor]) hold in the mining tenament. In other words, Olympic Domain holds a share of an asset, not equity in CHK. OD's percentage ownership of that asset has no bearing on CHK's market capitlisation nor any future exploration expenditure CHK incur's. It is difficult to speculate what rights CHK has under the agreement as farmee without having access to the farm-in agreement.
Below is an example of an opt-out provision from a farm-in agreement between two energy companies in the USA:
"If at any time during the performance of the Exploration Operations, expenditures exceeding the Maximum Carry Amount are required, Farmor shall have the option, which option shall be exercised no later than ten (10) days prior to the anticipated expenditure of the Maximum Carry Amount, to elect to either retain its Participating Interest in the Contract, or to assign one hundred percent (100%) of its Participating Interest to Farmee and retain a two percent (2%) overriding royalty interest (“ORRI”) in production in the Qinnan block. "
In Australia, i believe legislation prevents a farmee from receiving a 100% interest in a mining tenament via a farm-in agreement so i dont think the above clause would be permissible. However, I have used this clause for demonstration only; my point is that i would suspect there would be clauses in the agreement of this nature which deal with each parties rights in the event the earn-in hurdles are met. That is to say that ownership of the asset is a contractual matter and equity / expenditure / dilution have nothing to do with it.
CHK Price at posting:
4.2¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)