OGX (ASX) Ann: Clarification to Orinoco's ASX Announcement

Originally posted by eshmun ↑

"Re the JV they have announced all they can"

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

I for one believe they could advise the market if the term sheet that was signed with Anglo is binding or not in respect of the 70/30 ownership of the exploration leases. That would be clarity.

Also knowing whether the reason we are "going it alone" is some sort of boon resulting from the term sheet not being binding or whether it is actually due to Anglo going cold and withdrawing from its rights under the term sheet is very important in respect of making an assessment on the real prospectivity of the exploration acreage. Uncertainty in respect to the binding or non-binding nature of this agreement would potentially allow a false picture of a boon situation having been created when in actuality if OGX is going it alone due to Anglo going cold on the deal it would be a significant negative in terms of the prospectivity of the exploration acreage IMO. These big companies only seek and stay in these agreements when they believe there are prospects for finding deposits of the scale that has a chance of effecting their bottom lines.

The "real" details around these discussions and the motivations of each party are very telling in respect of the chances/potential of making a game changing discovery/ies on these tenements.

I fear we might be getting given the wrong impression about why the agreement and exploration under the JV isn't going ahead in the form previously announced.ie why the major JV drilling program at Sertao announced to be happening soon in Sept last year isn't going ahead and why we are suddenly in discussions when no mention was made of the JV being in discussion when the capital raising and prepayment under the Earn-In was made in Sept.

If the directors are interested in clarity, tells us if the 70/30 ownership under the Earn-In is or is not binding, whether it has ever been binding and if you are going it alone on the exploration, tell us if this is because Anglo are withdrawing or whether it's just because Anglo's lawyers are sloppy (I very much doubt it) and entered into a non-binding agreement pursuant to which $3 million was paid to the company. Esh

Expand

Or maybe the orignal jv ann was brokered by previous bod (you know. The guys who missed a few things) and before it was fuly finalised we had a change of bod... who figured out what had gone wrong... and arr now in a much stronger position to renogotiation any terms of the jv?