"Probe gave up 50% title, formally. Probe got no compensation for past exploration expenses on the properties. No shares changed hands. No cash. Just a commitment to share costs going forward. What's the quid pro quo?"

Maybe I'm not too surprised you didn't answer this question, but I'm disappointed.

The May 20 NR announcing the JV said:

"The Joint Venture does not include claims belonging to the Company's Tamarack or Victory properties, and excludes recently staked claims immediately north of the discovery area....

Probe had an option on certain claims held by Noront in this area in 2006 (see press release of December 22, 2005) and the option was terminated by Probe in 2007 before the discovery of the Eagle One deposit by Noront. Both Probe and Noront expressed concerns about each of their respective property holdings in this area and their rights pursuant to the historical option agreement. The joint venture is viewed as the most practical arrangement to address and resolve all of these historical concerns. In addition, Probe believes the joint venture will benefit the Company, and therefore shareholders, by providing for mutual data exchange and access to Noront's significant experience and resources in the McFauld's Lake area, as well as reducing costs associated with evaluating the economic potential of these claims."

I cannot think of any reason for the mention of the timeframe under which the claims were filed, unless it was germane to the dispute.

So, next time you're talking to Palmer, ask him if he is in the habit of offering up 50% ownership in his claims in return for the prospect of reducing exploration costs. If so, I'd like to discuss forming a JV with him on the Victory claims.

Lar