Hi Trish/All, have though long & hard about this - huge resource, very rich grade, SA govn. support, pro-uranium state, target 50,000T could be double based on what we know of Q hiding the results/numbers and all their other bs etc...all the boxes are ticked. IG statement 'we know what this (25%) is worth' at the 2007 (I think) AGM. Either Q pays up for what its worth, min $700M = $2/share I would say, or the judge gives Q a rack over the knuckles and a few million $ damages to AGS and then they proceed down the same road of delays, mistrust, basically Q screwing AGS endlessly. Do you think they're suddenly going to be all chummy and change the way they do things? Nope - I think AGS seriously need to remove Q from the JV based on breach of contract. They are now saying they won't mine it and will mine Beverley north instead. They are capping a resource to prevent others from mining it (not sure if this is illegal but happens in the oil/gas industry?) Q may be managers of the JV but AGS are the JV owners/originators based upon it being their lease. AGS would have detailed this in the orginal contract, for sure, if Q didn't abide by the requirements. Granted it could be a protracted process
AGS Price at posting:
62.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
