chart, page-47

Hi Chicka, Richie et al,
As I see it, an accepted mining lease allows mining to proceed. This can happen with the existing 25/75 arrangement irrespective of the M&DC litigation.
I know other posters see this differently so imo only.

IF HQ make the terms and conditions unworkable for the use of the Beverley plant, then the 5mlb standalone plant becomes the next best option. I believe it is in AGS' best interests to project manage the project, and I suspect this is the game-changer option on the table. Preparation for mining can commence, HQ receive their 75% once production starts, perhaps less as the M&D C litigation unfolds, AGS has control. No more games. HQ received their 75% pretty cheaply after all, they really need to be careful imo.

HQ will accept the T&Cs of the mining lease because they will be pro-forma and not indifferent to those T&Cs already agreed to with their Beverley operation. They will still receive their 75% at start up, possibly throughout the mining operation if the litigation goes their way.

HQ have nothing more to gain by stalling development now, unless they have a plan to secure control AGS Board, if that is possible. The delays to date have been about AGS securing its position, not the other way around.

I don't see the delays ahead of us that you still see.
Time will tell.

Cheers