Well, if not forked, at least a little crooked.

Everyman is entitled to his opinion, Rosseau makes these statements as if they were fact.

- Noront has severely diluted its McFaulds Lake claims position by entering into at least 11 different option agreements, which also drained and distracted Noront's administrative and operating resources;
- Noront is squandering its leadership position in the McFaulds Lake area by optioning out its ground, rather than consolidating other players in the region to form a company with critical mass which is capable of bringing a project into development;

This board had long discussions on this strategy and it was generally agreed that RN has the right idea.

Here's how it actually works:

In return for an OPTION to gain 50% rights on a claim, company A gives NOT money, agrees to give more money in the future and to spend money on exploration by X date.

This accomplishes a number of things to Noront's benefit-

1. Noront gets the area explored more quickly, potentially greatly increasing shareholder's value in a short period of time (many drills now drilling).
2. Noront accomplishes this without spending its own money reserves, and in fact, makes money, money that can be put into NOT's own prioritized development targets.
3. If there is success, NOT retains a full 50% ownership and acts as the operator.
4. If the the other company does not fullfill its duties, the property returns to NORONT.

I wonder why Rosseau does not acknowledge these positives?

Maybe he is just a money man - not a seasoned exploration wizard who looks to long term success versus short term profits.

I think I'll stick with Mr. Nemis' 28 years of experience on this one.

BK