Hi Destinator,
My experience with CA is in different industries but identical in intention. When one party wants to buyout/takeover/JV or otherwise get in on the opportunity, (lets just call it an investment) with another party there is a period of DD required to define the value of the investment. This requires full disclosure of proprietary details in order to accurately define the real value. This is a negotiation where the company being considered, (EXS in our case) will disclose their level of interest in a potential partner/buyer in dollar terms. ie EXS will indicate what they are prepared to accept in dollars and terms. By keeping this information confidential between the parties, no other party can use the information to leverage a different deal.
For arguments sake, lets say EXS indicates they are willing to accept a JV for a 50% stake in return for a $1M upfront fee and agreement to fund all exploration (please do not consider this in real terms, I am simply using easy to understand example). AEM would be at a disadvantage to a third party aware of this information as the third party could outbid by a small increment and push AEM out. EXS would be vulnerable to capping an offer from a third party who might have begun a negotiation at a higher value if they were not aware of what EXS was willing to accept.
These negotiations can be very complicated. It is not a simple, worth X dollars and here you go conversation. Typically there are dollars and relationship commitments. Low dollars up front and big commitment to futures can equate to large dollars up front and small commitment on futures. Somewhere in there, there is balance.
A good deal ensures EXS gets full value of the property as it is explored, and AEM pays out only when discoveries ensure a return on their investment.
No one wants to overpay and so futures concepts are more inclined. EXS doesn't want to give away the farm and AEM doesn't want to pay in advance for potential never realized. An agreement where both parties make money as the property is developed is the best for both sides. EXS wants the commitment of resources, both cash and expertise to develop this property in the fastest and most efficient way. AEM clearly represents both the adequate funding and deep expertise to accomplish this. AEM doesn't want to 'sign up' to a blank check to a junior exploration company. AEM will want controls in place and a weighted 'say' in how the money is spent. ie where to drill and how deep. As you can see, the details of this agreement begin to get very complicated and detailed. This negotiation requires EXS to disclose their deepest secrets about the deposit to convince AEM to allow them to direct exploration (Where and how to spend the money) Again, this negotiation is very complicated, can involve an infinite number of plans, commitments, warranties, and repercussions for disagreement or default. No small task with expensive lawyers drafting and directors arguing.
The time that has passed since the CA was signed represents real dollars spent on both sides and can only be regarded as positive to the eventual execution of a good deal for EXS and shareholders.
That said, it could also end in stalemate and no deal. While I believe after this amount of time passing there is little chance of this, there is still a chance. Egos on both sides have been known to be barriers to deals in the past.
I have no experience in Exploration companies. I have invented a few things, developed a product/company and then sold them. My experience comes from negotiating the sale/JV/investment of a company that has much greater 'potential' than revenue.
That said, a CA can include all kinds of cloak and dagger stuff and very detailed items specific to the companies and their type of proprietary information and intellectual property. The CA likely took a few revisions before it was signed.
Drill hole numbers on their graphics would be welcome. As you say, we could all better 'see' the deposit from their graphics published with those id's tagging the cores.
Adding those would be very simple, in fact, each pin representing core samples is documented with location coordinates, depth, and detailed results along the length of the core. I would assume AEM would have been provided this early on to accurately extrapolate their own math on the size of the deposit.
The fact that this information is missing from the web site I believe is intentional and so my answer would be yes, it looks like this information is being intentionally suppressed. I have never seen this info on their web site, since before the CA and so the suppression may be nothing new and not as a result of the CA.
JMHO.
Sorry for long winded response, and hope my comments help.
Luvtohunt
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
