Firstly there is nothing sinister about "dry hiring", it's a...

Firstly there is nothing sinister about "dry hiring", it's a mining term meaning that you supply the gear, usually at a day rate, and the hirer pays for labour, consumables etc. Its low risk for the equipment provider, and for a single rig company without an order book full of work, a much better option than having a bunch of expensive drill crews waiting around for the next job.

I'm not sure what the timing of the offer to dry hire was relative to the teller contract, but given that coretrack management, board has lost faith in the rig then dry hiring to someone who still believes in the rig makes a lot of sense!

Warren gets income from his 10 percent of gross profits, and the margin between the dry hire rate and what he's charging ( which is fair enough as he is taking the risks), ckk has a revenue stream ( from a rig which at the moment has it's ownership in dispute) and exposure to the tech.

The missing link is the surety that WS provides to ckk I.e. To guarantee that they'll get the asset back. Given that the rig cost $5m, and ckk could buy a portion of the ip license from strange investments for a fixed amount, perhaps the guarantee could be whatever $5m is as a portion of the ip value in the agreement between ckk and strange investments.

This dispute isn't just hurting ckk shareholders and strange investments but also potentially the reputation of the tech, which may impact on likelihood of securing contracts in the future -for whoever ends up with ownership of the rig.



I guess the asp