'“The arms length player is now also subject to CVY's buy back...

'“The arms length player is now also subject to CVY's buy back option until 2015.”

Do you want to post a link to this “fact”?'

No need boss. It is a matter of law that contractual rights cannot be unilaterally alienated. But you knew that, right?

What is hilarious is punters like you posting fantasy and throwing in concepts like 'rights of refusal' to make it sound like you have a clue.

But you don't, do you.

If the Cameron project royalty buy-back deal was just a 'right of refusal' as you say then that would mean that Nuinsco could say to CVY that they have an offer for $3.4 million for the 2% royalty (as they do), so if CVY want to buy it they have the right to match that price, and if they elect not to Nuinsco are free to sell it to someone else.

That's what a right of refusal is:

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right+of+first+refusal

'right of first refusal

The right to match a third-party's offer and purchase property if it is offered for sale. The owner has no obligation to sell to anyone, however. The term “right of first refusal” is often used interchangeably with option,but an owner who grants an option is obligated to sell if the recipient of the option chooses to exercise it. Contrast right of first offer.'

Compared to a buy-back option under US/Canadian law:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/buy-back-clause/

'Buyback clause is a provision in a contract that allows the seller of property the right or opportunity to repurchase the property under stated conditions.'

Go re-read the terms of the royalty deal between CVY and Nuinsco.

Is it a right of refusal, or a buy-back option do you think?