SFR is the manager of the farm-in, so there would be no...

SFR is the manager of the farm-in, so there would be no requirement for it to consult AUR's geo on what it's planning to do and seeking input; nor would there be an expectation on the part of AUR to be so consulted.

My experience with farm-ins, from an outsider's pov, is that the one spending the money and doing the exploring does not as a rule let the junior party know much, if anything, as to what is happening during a quarter, instead waiting and reporting to the junior party within 1 month at the expiration of each quarter.

That situation has intrigued me where the senior party has a MC of over $1b and the junior a MC of much less than that, meaning that's what's not price-sensitive exploration to say SFR could be price-sensitive to say AUR. However, as regards SFR and AUR, I am not intrigued as I know that SFR respects AUR's situation in that regard. In other words, if SFR were to find something that wouldn't affect its SP but would be likely to push up AUR's SP, then it would pass that info on to AUR for reporting.

The report that issued by AUR on 20/7 under its banner (via SFR too) is information that would not normally be available imo in the standard farm-in/out situation, but such is the relationship between SFR and AUR that it gave the info to AUR to report. I think that the management teams get on quite well. After all, the new powers-that-be at AUR have parleyed with Karl Simich before, reaching a different farm-in agreement back in March/April last year, but one which the then Board of AUR rejected.

The relationship is a space to watch imo.