RE:RE:A little explanation on trustsGiven how well it's worked for both TUO and AMK under the April 4, 2007 letter agreement, I'm pretty sure there won't be many parties interested in paying TUO real $$ for its 49% in TC until the formal joint venture agreement referred to in paragraph 8 of that letter agreement is in place. Nobody is going to pay TUO full value for their 49% or anything close to it for an interest that is simply held in trust by another party. In fact, if I was thinking of buying TUO's interest (or AMK's for that matter), not only do I want a proper JV agreement in place, I want to be part of the negotiations of that agreement and have it locked down before I sign the cheque.
Looking at the same issue from the other perspective, would anyone be interested in 49% of a remote BC play in the Golden Triangle with AMK at 51% and the operator? Again, don't get me wrong: I think AMK are good, intelligent and honest people and I'm sure they've learned a lot over the past ~5 years, but I wonder how many of the truly battle tested hard rock mining companies are going to want AMK as operator of such a remote play, however promising it is. Put another way, I don't think AMK being operator is a draw for TUO in trying to monetize its interest in TC, if it were so inclined. I think anyone worth their salt would want to operate, and who's to say if AMK, having legitimately earned the right to operate, would be inclined to give that up?
Point being, consistent with how Dino has completely botched the TC farmout from the get-go, TUO's 49% in TC isn't in a state right now where it could be monetized if TUO did in fact want to sell it. But yes, it is TUO's interest to freely sell if it can -- AMK could not prevent a sale by TUO if it wanted to and I think it's safe to say that AMK wouldn't mind having a different partner in TC.
JL