Verisante Technology Inc V.VER

Operator vs. NonOp

[operator5]

Nmkaat's observation about operator vs non operator multiples is interesting.  Of course, the reasons for this are at least two fold... 1. generating in house capabilities that are scalable and not totally dependent on investment partners, and 2. controlling the drilling operations in order to create predictable earnings.  These are the two I can think of, and honestly hadn't considered the valuation differentials.  When I have worked for public companies, we always wanted operations for primarily reason number 2 above.
So, given that this is a "non arms length deal" which means that the 99.9% probability is that Vecta O&G is the partner, and that the field operations will be held within a private company that is a substantive owner, and that is making this deal available to Vecta Energy on a "non arms length" basis, will this be enough to rid the investing public of the stigma of non-operations per se?  Vecta Energy seems to have access to both the 1 and 2 above without operations through this relationship.  It says in the earlier press releases that Vecta Energy has rights to Vecta O&G technology.  DOes anyone know details about this?  I wonder if it covers this issue?
Not being a technical stock analyst, it is always interesting to see how those that are see these things.