When a major takes a position in a junior, the story isn’t automatically de-risked. Even if the junior’s share is free-carried to production, you still shouldn’t cheerlead blindly. It can be great but it can also quietly shift control away from the junior in ways that don’t maximize value for the junior’s shareholders. Majors and producers don’t always share the same incentives as a junior’s shareholder base. A producer might optimize for pipeline control, long-dated optionality, conservative pacing, or minimizing near-term spend. They might want to keep the project in development (and not in production) until it fits their portfolio timing, commodity view, or capex cycle. Meanwhile, junior shareholders typically want value recognition on a much shorter clock. Free carried interests doen’t magically fix that. If the major controls the work program, the budget, the timeline, and the decision gates, they can effectively control when (or if) value is unlocked for the junior. That’s why the partnership terms matter and should be looked into more in-depth. Who chooses the exploration plan? Who controls budgets? What are the earn-in milestones and timelines? What happens if the major slows down or walks? Are there minimum spend requirements or can they warehouse it? Who runs the operator role? What are the buyout/ROFR/ROFO clauses? How is dilution handled at the JV level? What triggers a decision to build, and who has the casting vote? Etc etc. The difference between a partnership that accelerates value and one that traps it is usually in the fine print. Dig and ask. I did, in my recent interview with @SRL_Exploration $SRL.V. The CEOs answer is in the clip below. Full interview on YT and wherever you get your podcasts.