I agree it would be counterintuitive to agree to paying more money down the line if we lose but we are not going to fight anymore. The languge in the 10q is there though. So I would think it has happened already or is likely to happen. Why add the additional language if not.

The contingency is based on contractual milestone(s) being met. Who is meeting the milestones us or them. My only thoughts were if we have figured out a way to extend the lifes of the patents and they were granted that the price would increase.

Whatever the scenario I hope it is in our favor and happens soon and I don't mean soon to a geolgist.

GL