I mean though, there seems to be a perception that GGG will try...

I mean though, there seems to be a perception that GGG will try force a ~500ppm (uranium) revision.
It's quite possible further work on Kvanefjeld could increase you average again, should you not be advocating for 700 ppm?
(by your same argument).

Your concerns don't seem to stack up when comparing with EPM, where the averaging is well below the threshold of 100ppm.

I think you might need to revisit the GGG board dynamics, the JM power shift and exit does mean that new money will likely come from off-shore. Thus the current holders are likely to be in the passenger seat, rather that the bridge; this might be okay for some holders - but you would rather be able to huddle-into a meaningful block.

Suppose the scenario plays out the that arbitration after 24 months (I am being conservative - not concluding the outcome nor end timeframe) exhausts funds, both due to cash-burn from corporate services etc; and securing a tenement to work on. Will an ordinary GGG holder be in a position to sink further funds - and like wise your sophisticated peers, further two rounds (of we are almost there). I am thinking all outcomes will lead to project being diluted out of control of the current holders; and the real battle was lost at the JM exit (it should not have happened).
If arbitration was the path to take - you start to see the Singaporean linked investors dive in on the risk/reward, but if there were the case - existing holders will be cannon fodder for legal fees first, until the share price is worth the "Singaporean" risk/reward equation which is often lopsided in the mining sector.

Given the direction of GGG - holders will need to sight the cost agreement with Clifford; it'll be standard for London, by frightful by Australian standards (there was surge in London legal fees back in 2020).


EPM will progress and GGG will continue in some shape or form; all of us a little older.