Not sure, but if that is the basis that they MIN decided to not...

Not sure, but if that is the basis that they MIN decided to not go the TO route, that contradicts CE’s statement that he did not know about the tax credits. If they did know, why did he say what he did? Because it means the value is automatically $500M?
If as it has been stated here, AGO staff can be replaced and hence the value is not that tangible, why say that you want the people, all of AGO?

How do we as possible future shareholders know we can believe what he is saying is a true reflection of the state of the organisation and business?

Might I repeat what I have said before- the synergies should be beneficial both ways- both in the offer made to the shareholders of AGO and in the long term for the “new” company. Which we have already heard of from CE there is ample savings to be had (excluding the current “assets” that are not being included- tax credit, tenements, current business, Lithium, port allocation etc.)