NRE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RScuderia, you have proved yourself to me be a pumper based on your unreasonable and uncritical defense of the management. So from now on don't expect me to answer to all your questions. I only do it for the investor audience who may come accross this board.
Signing the JV under distress when running out of cash with such poor terms for a previous mine having just received a fairly robust 43-101 resource estimate, and under favorable market conditions was not an achievement - it was survival. As for comparison and for real world example refer to Clifton Star and its terms of agreement with OSK. As for other examples, you have mentioned them yourself several times - Brett Resources and even Romarco - claiming how OX's resource is even better and yet not getting its true value. How about Underworld in Yukon, Canplats in Mexico - of course these were buyouts but with significantly better share price / asset performance although in an inferior jurisdiction / infrastructure situation.
Of course, whatever example I give you could be contested because it is not the same but there are plenty out there to prove the point.
I mentioned it before several times that the true value of the company to the shareholder is its share price / appreciation. Thus, marketcap is immaterial for a shareholder. The high number of shares in OX compared to its share price, market cap, and resources also indicate a history of a poorly managed company which has had to be diluted excessively.