Followers | 2 |
Posts | 457 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 11/18/2015 |
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:06:30 AM
" Under the 50/50 joint venture agreement, MarMar will operate the mine and carry all costs."
MarMar should be carrying all costs. If that is not the case, one would assume per their agreement MarMar would be in default and lose something in the process? Example being MarMar would be reduced in ownership to 25% if they aren't able to carry cost per agreement. Is that something we know is in there? Still think having MarMar adds value in terms of all the red tape you could run into with Mexico ANYTHING, but if this is all being funded at our expense, we shouldn't be giving up half the profits when they come in addition. Any insight on this?
Recent MXSG News
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 06/28/2023 01:47:39 PM
VPR Brands LP Reports Record Annual Financial Performance for Fiscal Year 2023 • VPRB • Apr 19, 2024 11:24 AM
Coinllectibles' Subsidiary, Grand Town Development Limited, Acquires Rare Song Dynasty Ceramics Worth Over USD28million • COSG • Apr 18, 2024 8:03 AM
ILUS Provides Form 10-K Filing Update • ILUS • Apr 17, 2024 9:54 AM
Glucotrack Announces Expansion of Its Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology to Epidural Glucose Monitoring • GCTK • Apr 17, 2024 8:00 AM
Maybacks Global Entertainment To Fire Up 24 New Stations in Louisiana • AHRO • Apr 16, 2024 1:30 PM
Cannabix Technologies Begins Certification of Contactless Alcohol Breathalyzer, Re-Brands product series to Breath Logix • BLOZF • Apr 16, 2024 8:52 AM