Hi @olderwiser ...sorry for the tag as 'reply' didn't work on...

Hi @olderwiser ...sorry for the tag as 'reply' didn't work on your last post.

While we don't know for sure....it is likely that the undisclosed conditions are around the timing of insider information events. Which would be expected by other investors and by regulators.

My interpretation is that Elko can elect to protect the funding of its payment, but not on the basis of undisclosed insider information. As such, there are likely to be certain permitted trading windows such as pre-spud or post-flow testing announcements or post-season ending announcements. I suspect such sale restrictions will apply whether or not shares have been milestone released to Elko. If I was a drilling contractor with real costs, I would be inclined to realise the cash value of any shares (at least up to the value of my projected costs), prior to drilling. But that's just me.

I don't know for sure....but I'm inclined to believe by default that any litigation wary corporation would be inclined to make these trading window provisions. Moreso for a company dependent on its public listing to be maintained for future funding sources.

To me, this transaction is a supplier payment transaction and any sales of shares should be primarily viewed through those lenses with the context of likely permitted trading windows. Which is very different from viewing the trading activities of Sophs or Instos funding a CR or private investors funding a farm-in.

Anyway...as you said bottom line impact on balance sheet is ultimately the same....whether equity for cash or equity for service. Company is now one step closer for 3.5% -ish dilution. How many more steps required to bridge any funding gap remain unknown till we get a final budget that includes flow testing.

GLTA.