Thank you for the explanation.Regarding being surrounded, there...

Thank you for the explanation.

Regarding being surrounded, there should be an instrument governing an easement between the land/s to allow for access.

If IGO tried to charge for access they would have to ultimately demonstrate how access is impacting IGO’s operations/ costs/ revenue. The courts may not look favourably upon IGO’s approach for costs and so why I think this point is mute. (Other test cases of similar circumstances can be reviewed).

The shorting theory (maybe plausible) but ultimately the business has to be valued at arms length - You can only try to hold the share price (valuation) down for so long before it needs to play catch-up.

For example, If PON is trading at $30k per tonne where production guidance exceeding targets and PAN is still valued sub $600 million then I find it highly unlikely that management/ board/ shareholders approve a low ball offer - Zeta & Mr Forrest (Along with other large institutions on the register) would have to be pretty stupid to accept anything less than fair value.

WSA got valued at about $1.2 billion or a multiple of X12 times (gross profit aka $95.56m) for FY21.

PAN has proposed to make over $100 million gross profit (Not NPV) each year using PON at $19,500.00 per tonne - As at January 2022, PON is trading at about $22,000.00 per tonne which makes PAN way more profitable.

So should PAN not also command a valuation of over $1.2 billion if we use the same multiple that IGO has proposed for WSA?