Autosime, I don't think I mentioned the $175m prior offer...did...

Autosime,

I don't think I mentioned the $175m prior offer...did I? I was referring to it's current MarketCap, that's all. It's coincidence that they are around the same thing. (except one being AUD, the other $USD)

To add to that, I'm theorising of course. Effectively guessing, and by no means with any level of knowledge greater than anyone's 'guesses' here.

I make the assumptions on (following) logic only (which could be flawed and happy to be steered in a different direction):

1) AM will want to keep out of court (can't fight $ battle on 2 fronts...survival and legal battle)

2) Chinese will want same (protracted and risky legal will risk their potential grasp on asset. They've done the hard work, why add element of risk to this?)

3) Work has already been done to get price of PDN down. I'll say circa 18 months. I won't say manipulation...but, err, um, you know - shorting isn't manipulation. ;-)

4) Hence a fair price was (in eyes of some...even CNNC) could be argued was established long ago. That (US$800m) is not my number...but it could be a fair number if you look at what else poses for a mine. (see UEC for example). It's also just an opinion.

5) Because of bondholders liens/caveats/encumbrances/charges over assets (whatever you want to call it) - they won't settle for pennies in dollar, in my opinion, as they'll reason that if broken up they might jag more for a sale of 'sum of parts' going through it forensically. This goes full circle back to CNNC/CIC connection won't want any risk posed of 'going to market'. I could add that perhaps Chinese party do not want the reputational damage of been seen to be the cause of companies they touch go to pooh - in hindsight to prevent their ownership of any mining ventures in the future. (Sundance as another example). I say this tongue in cheek as many might scoff that this has been breached already. Perhaps it has, but consider in 3-4 years - if a deal is done that splits assets, PDN survives intact (but minus LH) and Uranium recovers as most expect...I honestly believe this won't hurt their reputation overly. Business is business. People know that and tiddler mining companies will still take Chinese $$ to advance their interests and risk perennial bear markets to gain it. But if they hollow out PDN by taking LH and leave nothing but carcass...that and examples like Sundance might compel a critical mass of future mining CEO's to demur from Chinese overtures. This will, in the long run cost Chinese interests more than it will favour them to secure supply (of whatever commodity) for their nation.

6) Can't trigger insolvency for same reason. (ie: out of hands of negotiators/business people and into administrators) ie: a little more random and out of control of antagonists or protagonists, dependant on which side of the fence you are on.

7) To add more weight to this, other shareholders, no less those with major shareholdings will be in there to throw their weight into things, including any 'blocking' stakes. On this thread, at the end of the day I'd expect people to be realists, with their one common baseline being greed (at the upside) and survival (on the downside). Keeping KLK mine and other assets, with no debt and a path forward into a revitalised (to be proven) Uranium market is, I feel, a real resolution for some. Everyone at this table needs to realise that there will not be a perfect outcome.

One only gets to this point once you accept that you can move down the path of examining the best worst outcome.

Of course, I could be wrong on so many of these points, I admit. In fact, because this is a jigsaw puzzle (and words such as 'purports' doesn't help) and one piece wrong will mean the whole thing will be wrong. But I'm trying to consider it logically. If I'm wrong, so be it, but it's wise to consider the alternatives.

And finally to emphasise the point, my theory stands on the basic premise that whatever narrative is expressed externally, the reality is that both sides want to keep this out of the hands of true litigation. Talk of encouraging legal eagles get hold of this and run with it (and it's a 'case closed' affair) is, in my opinion, not the wisest choice. You might win a battle to lose a war. I've felt loss in a courtroom even when I've won.

Especially while it is patently evident one side can't afford the litigation and the other one can. That's their (PDN's) weakness and their (CNNC's) strength. Having said that, one party doesn't have LH and they can't get it without negotiation. That's their (CNNC) weakness and PDN's strength.

I reiterate to SH's...good luck and I wish you all well. You have an incredible resource and great pipeline of assets. You should be rewarded for them. I sincerely hope you are.

In my opinion your share price has been trounced for 12-18 months by forces that perhaps (while not destined for this outcome) had it in their purview to deal with this eventuality if the U price didn't recover. I don't think you've arrived at a AUD $179m market cap because of natural price discovery. There is a difference between 'price discovery' and 'price force'. Unfortunately, the difference between the 2 would never be distinguished in a court room (you would lose that battle). I wouldn't tempt fate by trying to force the burden of proof on this and many other charges.

I reiterate. Optics will be legally worded and legally mooted. Reality should be business negotiations. That's my bet as to what's going on in the board rooms.

For the record however, I still think AM has played this wrong and he hasn't been a great contingency operator. On the back foot (reactionary) the whole time, he hasn't assisted any SP recovery also by some loose press releases. Staged? Probably not. But poorly played? Absolutely.

Cheers


Gav