Explorationguy, I fear we may be putting some readers to sleep with these postings, but here goes ...

No, I can't say for certain which flow-through the February 2010 renouncement is connected to. I based my previous statement (assumption) on the general rule of flow- throughs that expenditures cannot be renounced as of a date earlier than they were incurred.

Having said that, there IS an exception to that general rule and it may apply in this case. In fact, looking at it now in more detail, I am inclined to think that yes, it IS the case. It is the "look-back rule". I just reviewed all the conditions which would need to be present in order for this rule to apply, and I see that they are, indeed, all present (as far as I can tell).

If this is, indeed, the case, then if Kodiak did not spend all the money by the end of February 2010, it would have been subject to an interest charge. If it does not spend all of the money by the end of 2010, it will be subject to a significant penalty. If that is the case, then yes, they are 'under the gun' to spend the money.

I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to contact someone in financials and ask them.

By the way, the "look-back rule" is used by companies to create an incentive to investors to buy the flow-through shares. I guess last December, such incentive was needed.