In that case can I ask what part of your original post...

In that case can I ask what part of your original post encapsulates "sophisticated discourse" that underpins a reasonable $2 bound investment thesis?

I suspect its less about a disagreement of opinion and more about a distaste for the superficial style of your original post which lacked any of what you've asserted should be HC gold standard. For instance,

• What specifically is not vs promised with respect to this acquisition?
• What's the detail behind you "smoke and mirrors" statement?

The market is forward looking, so any market capitalization with regard to a nascent company (post BB onboarding) is a composite of potential long term forward earnings + actual + potential near term earnings.

Both of the major shareholders have lent heavily into a price premium, which is definitely an atypical outcome and in particular for miners - why? Money talks, is the litmus test, and when those with significant money in the game are the same as those running the shop, its not because they think there is material risk in the mid to long term. That's a big TICK for most who have been around a while.

They've just picked up a tier 1 asset for a max of 20% of its sunk cost. That's like buying a Tesla and the dealership giving you four more for free!! Who would be dumb enough to not accept that deal? But, not many sharp and clever enough to create it - BB and team are the difference.

Early in a commodity bull market, with two + excellent assets, services to come, run by some of the best in the business and you expect us to consider your meagre antithesis seriously?

Over to you to prove your sophisticated discourse (case) or not.