"(1) Why announce a deal without having all the terms agreed upon? If more info is needed to determine final terms, then why not announce the deal when all terms have been agreed upon."

Kyer, let me take a stab at this. IMHO the terms of the deal most likely were not all agreed to upon or all at once because it gives all parties assurances the deal could be broken and that the monies spent partially would have a break up fee in liue of non-passage either by shareholders voting against the deal, Vz. gov't failing to deliver the Enviro Permit and lastly legal ramifications if indeed the CRRC signed on completely w/out all the proper documentation and assets associated with the planned joint venture the CRRC would have an legal exit plan on the table.

I would dare to bet the attorneys knowing full well where thier clients have stood over the past year or so wanted assurances as well (GRZ's confiscation) that all the "t's" and "dots" were outlined and protections were put in place before the measures were signed off.

In other words it's most likely a legal formaility that one would want especially in a country like Vz.

Essentially it protects investment interests and assures all parties are made whole on the venture.

Just my stab at your question.