...the Salazar agreement has been replaced by the JV agreement and it has been discussed here at length that the JV terms are better for us.

-----------------------------------

Respectfully Sibu, I think the suposition that because it has been discussed here at length it is somehow the truth is a dangerous one. The board may have discussed various takes on different topics, but I think we should be careful not to take popular opinion about any topic as gospel. The track record for popular opinion about what is going to happen next isnt good.

------------------------------------

Hoghead, i think you are mixing things up again. The JV agreement supreseeding the Salazar one is a fact; it already happened and the JV terms and conditions are clearly spelled out. This isn't something that is going to happen and we are just discussing the possibilities.

Some claimed here that we were better off under Salazar. Then others counteracted that the JV agreement is beter and brought well thought arguments for it (a few posts from Prospekt come to mind).

-------------------------------------

I think I understand now where we are missing each other's points:

You are saying the JV agreement is better because of some well thought out arguments. Like it is already settled and fact because of this. Just for example, look how well Vette supported his arguments that we were going to the moon - he had all the numbers, everthing fit together nicely, it seemed logical - almost a sure thing that we were all going to be rich. I'm not taking a dig here at Vette, just trying to make a point that even a well thought out argument, complete with numbers that do add up, doesn't nessesarily make it true. I should also say, I do believe he believed what he posted - no sinister intentions.

I can make my point in a different way - I think the future will decide if the JV was genius or a fumble. At this point in time how on earth can we say it is better? Nothing has happened yet (to provide return on investment)? We can speculate it will be better or worse. If things come together and the project moves forward - that would confirm its in fact better. If we end up delayed or shelved in an attempt to starve us out - that would confirm it was not the best choice?

Salazar is gone, it is spilt milk. I have read the arguments why the JV is better than the Salazar because of the financing component, etc. Also the arguments for the Salazar as better due to us being the operator till earn back, us in control of Liard (thus enabling the timeline enforcement), etc...

Take your pick - each have their strengths - which strengths more important to you is up to you. I don't think because you choose one side you can discount someone else for not seeing it your way though. Its all semantics.

We can agree to disagree, but you are right - its all redundant as Salazar was flushed and the JV is what we have now. We can't go back in time. But we also don't have to say its fact that management was genius crafting this JV.