Ann: Webinar Invitation - Strategic Assets, Multi-Commodity, page-8

Good ol' TB has never properly grasped the not-so-subtle difference between sunk costs (or even replacement cost) vs. added value.
It bears repeating: The most important metric is added value.
Yes, it's somewhat subject and, yes, it might have an indirect connection with sunk/replacement costs on a good day. But during a combined Ni/Li winter, forget it. That's why the previous Board was able to pick up LJ and BS for ~$1.5m each + their respective rehab. liabilities.

It matters little what the face value of the still-born LJ sale to MIN was because the deal never went through. In fact, in many respects, having that recent history wrt to the LJ project will more likely than not act to give any other potential suitors of that project pause to do PLENTY of DD prior to lobbing any project-related bid, if at all.

Punters may wish to consider why the Board is only talking about potential project suitors sniffing around, yet is acting to raise funds via a heavily dilutive CR at record low pricing.

The projects that currently sit within POS' asset stable are unlikely to ever benefit current SHs. They'll end up getting hived-off at distressed pricing (after factoring the rehab. liabilities) in order to fund Ord Street G&A, or, worse, end up in the hands of the liquidator who will only be able to achieve pennies in the dollar. Either way, if there is any long-term economic benefit in those assets, it's more likely than not to be enjoyed by different eventual owners.