This mine is hardly ready to go. They've done the minimal work...

This mine is hardly ready to go. They've done the minimal work to have a shot of permitting, imho, but that does not mean you anywhere near construction ready. They haven't even gone beyond a scoping study - can't build (or finance) a mine based upon that - it will still take a lot of effort and monies to get this to construction ready.

Tying up an offtake would be similar as giving SVM a 15% stake prior to binding: it would just make sure the project unattractive for potential suitors, if you really believe in a copper shortage it is better to leave it unencumbered, I would think. Furthermore you would probably surrender yourselves to the wolves, the likes of Glencore or Trafigura. If you don't like SVM, then you better not look at business practices at the likes of Glencore or Trafi. They will pick you dry of any value.

I don't think a scenario where CLA retains a part of MCB will deliver (the best) value to shareholders. It will lead to further diluation, the cash would start coming in best case scenario 5-7 years from now (remember easiest the biggest detroyer of value in mining is time), and much of it will be paid towards management, and/or waisted on other projects to keep them and their mates busy. I doubt that will deliver value to (all) shareholders, in the same way a full sale does. So I very much would advocate for the whole project to be sold, rather than j/v it, from a shareholders return perspective, and whatever you may have thought about the SVM offer, for me I appreciated it was an offer where shareholders got value direct to them rather than a structure where it would be tied up in CLA for management to feast upon. Too much fee feackage in a j/v, and as a junior partner you would be at the mercy of both j/v partner and then management sharing the spills with shareholders. At the very best it would create a lot of delays and uncertainty.

Imho SVM's bid - if it was real in the first place - and not a stealth capital raise gone wrong - has far too easily been discarded by those opposed. I respectfully submit that they may have been more emotionally than rational. But time will tell. I understand many have been holding shares for a long long time; so they may have been bogged down in the thinking, and if they have plenty of money to waiste they may be in the position to go all or nothing; sometimes that is easier than admitting you are wrong and reversing course.

Furthermore you would have to compare future cash flows not against current marketcap, but against marketcap at the 3c bid. Then I would vastly prefer money in hand now to perhaps money in 5-7 years time, with all uncertainties that go with that. Just think about the opportunity cost alone...

By the way, for a taxation standpoint I deem Phillipines much more risky than most of South America. People are getting their panties in a twist when some countries advocate for a greater share of profits to go towards public interest, but seem to forget that Phillipines already have it engraved into law that 60% must be locally owned. On the other hand: can it not only get better?