"Whats all the fuss about? "
I have never in all my time on ASX and in the mining industry seen a company farm out land under a 70/30 exploration JV and then turn around and start spending on that same land while an agreement remains in force.
Any agreement can be binding. They have been calling it an Earn-In agreement and even as late as the clarification announcement on Friday, changed their wording from proposed JV MOU to proposed JV (in the same announcement) as per the post I made.
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/an...-announcement.4069192/page-7?post_id=31640547
They made this change without explaining what it means.
The whole point of farming out exploration spend is to reduce risk to shareholders due to the fact that exploration is not predictable and does not always result in a viable mine being found and developed. How is a shareholder/investor supposed to decide on risk verses reward if we don't know if the 70/30 agreement is in force or not, its completely impossible and an absolutely unacceptable position to put shareholders/investors in. OGX should not spend 1cent on exploration over the Earn-In areas until there is clarity on whether the 70/30 split is binding or not.
I noticed that you conveniently avoid answering my question of a few days ago in respect to the hypothetical situation where OGX drills a hole at Antena/Xupe that returns 100m @ 10g/t. What happens in this situation, what share of that result does OGX own???? What happens after that? Do OGX keep drilling with their own money to follow that hole up while Anglo are allowed to sit back knowing that their Earn-In agreement is binding over those 36 months from when it was amended in Sept 2017 last year. This is a completely untenable situation until OGX come and tell the market if the 70/30 interest over the ground is binding or not.
If you can't understand this you shouldn't be investing money in the stock market. Clarity about ownership arrangements is the central tenant of making any investment decision.
The fact that JV documentation hasn't been finalised doesn't mean the Earn -In agreement or MOU is not binding in regard to the 70/30 ownership. It's often the case that final JV documentation doesn't occur for a long time after a term sheet is executed. Often the term sheet will set out the conditions required or timeline to trigger the formal JV arrangements, it doesn't mean the terms in the term sheet aren't binding or invalid.
I'm beginning to believe I'm in discussion with a novice investor here who can't understand the implications of what I'm trying to point out.
Extremely poor market disclosure by this company IMO. Esh
