Let’s look at a couple of older posts by security101:
https://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/MessageDetailThread.aspx?sv=2&p=0&m=29650088&r=0&s=TUO&t=LIST
Hay Dino.....er......Joe Friday,
I don’t know where you’re pulling your “industry average” numbers from, perhaps you could give us the source. I think you’re a little confused between 07& 09.
The reality is that because there is nothing in option agreements relating to price range on things, arguing prices is rather pointless. Then again, so are most posts on this bull board.
But just to show everyone how pathetically desperate you are to “convince the sheeple” that you have a case; I’ll play along for a minute.
Your math Dino:
AMK in 2007 = $205/ft all in
Seabridge in 2007 = $100/ft all in
Teuton Fiji property in 2007 = $238/ft all in (that’s kinda weird isn't it?)
As I mentioned in a previous post, a ton of $ was spent on Eureka with very few meters drilled (according to AMK website) making for terrible efficiency. If you look at the 09 program you will find that AMK achieved $36/ft when not drilling Eureka, and when the industry was at its bottom. Dino we’ve already been over the whole apples and oranges of 07 vs 09 before.
But lets be ridiculous anyway and ignore rates being double in 07 and bad drilling on Eureka.. Now, everyone get out your calculators! 18,000 ft (07 Treaty Footage) x $36/foot (an inaccurate# Dino gave us) = $648,000. AMK spent $1,622,982on drilling in 07. $1,622,982 - $684,000 = $938,982 (the supposed money “wasted”, or as Dino puts it “kicked-back”).
I think AMK is saying they spent well over $6.5 or $6.6 but lets just use the far more restricted and narrow view of the BC Government which APPROVED $6,411,347.00. Take that and minus $938,982 and you get $5,472,365. Let me guess – AMK was also getting kick backs from the cook who over charged by ½ million?
So here are the options:
- Dino uses the "pretend numbers" above in court, resulting in AMK being $550k over the earn-in. Dino loses.
- The court uses the actual numbers spent (always done), resulting in AMK being $1,441,237 over the earn-in. Dino loses.
- The court uses the real numbers spent on Treaty (always done) and not the highly restrictive ones the Mineral Titles branch uses, resulting in AMK being about $1,600,000 over the earn-in. Dino loses.
- The court recognizes that there is no industry standard for efficiencies in an option agreement. Dino loses. (ALSO THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE JV AGREEMENT STATING THAT THE STANDARDS USED FOR FLOW THROUGH SHARE WILL BE USED AS A MEASURE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE CONTRACT)
- The court recognizes that there is no efficiency clause in the option agreement TUO signed. Dino loses.
- The court recognizes that in the counter law suit launched by Teuton, it does not even bring up efficiencies. It only states that sufficient exploration expenses were not spent. Therefore it’s not part of the case. Dino loses.
- The court wonders why Dino would submit the same expenses as AMK had sent to him years ago, showing that AMK had spent over $6.2 million up to that point. Dino loses.
- The court looks at the fact that Dino had the 07 expenses shortly after the program had been run (or pretend he didn’t have them – when they were available to the public in early 08 – both through audited financial statements and approved documents by the ministry of mines). So the court says “Dino – Either you approved of them or you didn’t. If you approved of them it’s a bit late in the day to change your mind. Dino loses. If you had a problem with them then, and you intentionally let AMK spend another $3 prior to bringing it up – then you’re the one who broke the option agreement. Dino loses. The same is true in 09 when you had read them, approved them, announced to the world that AMK had completed its first earn-in and held 51% of the property. Dino loses.
- The court looks at the 4 terms – not conditions of the option agreement – and finds that AMK is not in breach of any of these. Dino loses.
- The court recognizes that the 4 terms (even if broken) – are in fact terms – not conditions. The only condition is that $5,000,000 is spent towards Treaty. The facts show over $5,000,000 is spent. Dino loses
- The court find that Dino never did have a case and it was simply malicious intent (as the TUO press release says – “hay we might just get this thing back, we got nothing to lose”). Dino loses with big time punitive damages.
If anyone would like to come up with a 12th option– feel free.
Point #11 was a bit of an opps on TUO’s part.
https://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/MessageDetailThread.aspx?sv=2&p=29653622&m=29654218&r=1&s=AMK&t=LIST
Teuton (TUO) stakes a great property that turns out to be next to Canada's largest gold deposit
American Creek (AMK) signs option agreement for way more than they ever should have: $5 mill by March 2010 to get 51% and title.
AMK completes option in Sept 09. TUO announces twice that AMK has completed and earned-in but fails to give AMK title.
The companies do joint press releases announcing amazing results.
AMK shareholders realize they don't have title yet and sell. AMK doesn't run a program in 2010 and stock goes from 30 cents (prior to problems with TUO) down to 5 or 6 cents.
15 months after TUO failed to transfer title, a law suit and counter law suit was launched. TUO announces that they have nothing to lose by having the law suit. In fact it could be a huge win if they could get it all back. TUO stock doubles.
The option agreement had one condition only. $5 million spent on Treaty by March 2010.
AMK's audited (by PWC) statements show they spent about $6.4 million (at the time of the financial statements)
The Mineral Titles branch of the BC Government audited and approved $6.4 million towards the property
Looks like the documents TUO submitted to the court showed $6.2 million being spent.
These changes in SP will also be up for questioning during discoveries.