There is probably more behind the ban then we are allowed to...

There is probably more behind the ban then we are allowed to know: i.e NTM finessed these tenements while Gemco was asleep at the switch. So Gemco stirs up local opposition backed by the government. Then the gov pays off NTM (will the settlement allow NTM to hold onto the tenements?) Or will ntm be smart enough to hold onto the tenements so when,not if, but when the gov says its okay to develop those tenements, NTM will be in position to proceed. Or wil ntm be stupid enough to lose its rights, in exchange for some hugely discounted dollar amount with the thought that cash will fund, in part, what remains of ntm's portfolio of exploration projects. There is a scenario where Gemco winds up with the tenements.

So ntm will wind up with more or less cash probably less. Why? Because there is so much evidence that exploration projects are high risk with absolutely no guarantee of success, but with a very strong probability of failure. Each possible reason for failure discounts the gov's payout formula. Will the gov treat this as a nuisance claim? Afterall Gemco, which has tenements surrounding ntm's is not claiming. At least I haven't heard that they were. Is any other entity claiming anything?

So where does that leave ntm's shareholders? Invested in a shell with some money in the bank (how much who knows) and a portfolio of exploration projects that will take years to develop whose risks can eat up the new cache of cash very quickly assuming lawyers and management don't greedily deplete it.

I am skeptical...............................