found this re royalty., page-18

'TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Sept. 20, 2012) - Nuinsco Resources Limited ("Nuinsco" or "the Company") (TSX:NWI) today announced that it has entered into a royalty purchase agreement with an arm's-length third party to sell the Company's 3% net smelter return royalty (the "Royalty") on Coventry Resource Limited's ("Coventry") Cameron Gold Project located southeast of Kenora in northwestern Ontario for cash proceeds of $5.1 million.

Conditions to closing are typical for a transaction of this type, including completion of legal due diligence, regulatory approvals and receipt of required consents. '


Nuinsco are entitled to on sell the benefit of the their smelter royalty with CVY, and have done so.

Nuinsco may well need CVY's consent to the sale, but it is impossible to see how that could be refused if CVY'S right to enforce the 2% buy-back remains intact against the new owner of the rights.

Which it obviously has to, or CVY can sue Nuinsco for breach of the smelter buy-back option contract.

The point I am making, and you don't seem willing to accept, is that the arms length buyer of the smelter royalty rights HAS TO take those rights entirely SUBJECT to CVY's buy-back option, which remains legally enforceable until 2015.

Which means that either the smelter royalty buyer is a predator of CVY, is associated with a predator of CVY or values 1% of the Cameron Royalty at C$3.1 million (because it knows that CVY can claw back 2% of the 3% it has bought rights to for C$2 million at any time between now and 2015.)

The sale is for $5.1 million, which is how you can extrapolate paying $3.1 million for 1% if the buy-back option is enforced.

The fact remains that you refuse to concede that the deal has nothing at all to do with 'rights of refusal' as you so pompously claimed.

Without admitting you were simply wrong about that everything else you post is tainted by your obvious attempt to save face.