Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ABER RESOURCES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (1058)	3/17/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Walt	Respond to of 2006

Its odd how often we disagree on these things Joe. Ive seen a few JV agreement where both parties have to agree and Ive seen plenty where A budget is presented and if one party doesnt agree, too bad, they get diluted out as the money gets spent if they dont contribute their share. I've seen JVs where one party can sit it out for a few years, get dilluted and then back back in by over spending money. As for the mining regs in the NWT I have a fair working knowledge of them. If you and I decide to go 50 50 on a claim we can stake it and record it as such. However if we recorded it 100% in my name then under the regs that claim is 100% mine and you would have to go to court to prove otherwise. If I did all the work and all the filings you would have a pretty weak case that you had contributed your 50% obligation on the claim.When I tranfer a claim to someone I can transfer 1005 or anyy % I want and attach an agrement or NSR GOR onto that transfer. But the real point here is JV agreements and each one is different. If this one were as you describe then how did the original partner Antler (or its predessor) get diluted down and why was aber diluted down last year. If one were to sign a deal like you suggest and one partner just kept saying, sorry we dont approve the budget, then what would happen. Either no work would ever get done or they could just sit back and watch the property develop without ever contributing to it or losing any interest in the ground. I certainly wouldnt enter in to a JV agrement where one partner could just say "no I dont agree to any of the work you propose and if you go ahead and do it, my interest remains the same." I have seen agreements that state $100,000 will be spent on the property every year and partners will contribute 50-50 and any monies over and above that have to be approved. I have also seen agrements with some pretty fancy dilution formulas, but I havent seen many where someone gets a free ride just because they dont want to participate. regards Walt