Terry - my understanding is that it is not the original 2002 JVA...

Terry - my understanding is that it is not the original 2002 JVA with its $300,000 earn-in period that is in contention - but the variation to that agreement made on 29/9/2004 requiring $450,000 to be spent before 30/10/2005.

No party would agree to an extension to a contract that had not been fulfilled, or had lapsed, if they had knowledge that their asset had the potential to be worth much more than a 75/25 share. Even the expenditure of $40m+ by Q pales into insignificance compared to what the asset is suspected to be worth