Hutcho8I would have to ask you to expand on at least a few of...

Hutcho8
I would have to ask you to expand on at least a few of your points to properly put the bullet point into perspective.

Synergies or economy of scale would firstly need to consider the CAPEX, OPEX of running and maintaining only one plant.
Given MLM is the only asset with a currently defined solution to get product to market, makes sense to locate the process plant, stockpiles, accommodation and main site power etc near the load out.

Reduction of costs would need to be delved into a lot deeper when looking at either possible process / loadout option as at least one of the assets would need to be trucked, conveyed or pipe slurryed backward and forth across or around Mitsubishi's mine lease. That would only be after approval from Mitsubishi. None of those various options come without a large and sustained cost in CAPEX and OPEX.

Project to market speed seems a bit vague to me as MLM have a project at BFS stage and on track to be loading ships around the end of 2026 at current projections. I fail to see how bringing the DRX assets into the equation, that are at no better than scoping study stage and on the other side of Mitsubishi can possibly get MLM's asset to market quicker.

Increased profit is also a vague statement. Under what scenario would define the coupled assets being able to generate more profit when shipping in the GBR is the ultimate governing variable. MLM have already worked their BFS to those levels. Another plant, loadout facility could increase profit by increased output, but then we would need to revisit all of the above points which would quickly reveal this take over is a total waste of time and money.
Ther are several ways the product from any of these solutions could be sold to realize a profit but the size of increase in profit is not guaranteed if the product is sold, for instance to a major shareholder's subsidiary at close to cost and then value added by the subsidiary.