RE: RE: More to it...Ok fair enough.. i appreciate your points, glad to hear them , and in fact i may tend to agree with you that Gnaweeda may not be as big a deal as it is being dressed up to be (....in that they dont own 100%.)
But ..one thing from your post that caught my eyes is the line...
".and in real terms, the exploration costs are peanuts relative to the value these companies are chasing..."
As i understand it ", Teck has the right to claw back 75% of the Company’s interest by spending 2.5 times the Company’s exploration expenditures." Agreed, this may be peanuts , but the key point is Kent keeps ownership of 25% , or do i misunderstand this? 25% of a large find is something worth having... (...and if its a reasonable find , Teck may not go back in,... ) .. so really to me its a question of whether there is anything significant or better at Gnaweeda.
If so either way Kent wins ... if theres no gold , well then it would be like rolling snake eyes.. but i dont think this will be the case...
In regards to the multiple sites being undeveloped.... ..i think thats the point of the spinoff....to be able to approach investors with a smaller market cap (thus a larger potential slice of the pie) for potential investors so that they can develop those potential sites... so it seems like this is the right way to go .. i dont know? Is that a reasonable assumption?
.. i prefer to hear both sides personally, so please let me hear your view,..