Matt,"or do you think this has always been a china-only deal (no...

Matt,

"or do you think this has always been a china-only deal (no interest by anyone else..it's all BS) implying perhaps that Sundance management has committed something unspeakable ?"

It's clear that you're eluding to my earlier posts where I make reference to "China only" deal. You making wrong and unnecessary inference.
At no stage did I suggest that there are no other interests or suggesting that "sundance ...commited something unspeakable."

Sure, I undersdtand that the "China only deal" as advocated by GC a long time ago when SDL just wanted to "flog off" SDL, carried a specific meaning in that context at that time.

I refer to "China only deal" in a different context. I am talking, and have always talked about the FINAL OUTCOME after all bids, negotiations, off-take, EPC have been concluded. I've advised that the speech and presentation suggest that it will be a "China only" deal - MEANING, China will, after negotiations with all parties have concluded, will walk away with all the spoils (The P&R EPC, Off-take and equity(not necessarily the mine EPC because, in the scheme of things it is less important) At all times I've advocated my views, in particular, the wish that "the spoils" land with Europed/Internationals (as recently as this morning that there might still be hope that Europe/international might walk away with "the final deal" - Having read a bit about Noble) AND ONLY IF THAT HAPPENS (Europe/Internationals walking away with spoils), then I see CHINA as being left with one option only namely a T/O in the true sense of the words.

Not for one moment do I think that there were no competative bids. To make that sort of inference from what I've posted is indeed BS.

Matt, you choose to change and play and interpret word to suit your view. All of sudden "T/O" should not be used anymore - Rather "winning Bid(?)" - Please!!

To me (within the context that I refer to "China only" deal) I see "China only" deal to be exactly the same as your "Chinese winning bid". But in no way do I see a "China only" deal as equivalent to "T/O". My argument is that if it is a "China only" deal, there will be NO NEED, and there WON'T be a Chinese T/O because they will have everything they wanted(see my post over the weekend). But if Europe/Internationals win the spoils - then T/O becomes a reality if China wants it.

What you are now saying is that there will not be a T/O (in true sense) because China will go for 100% asset and will outbid the others significantly. In your view the current TENDER Process is in fact a bidding war for T/O. Well I think that is a bit farfetched because the competative nature under tender simply will not achieve the same financial benefit for shareholders as would be the case when there is a true T/O bid. But, of course, I could be wrong and you may be right.

Can't wait for all to be revealed.

Sentiment: Still want Europe/Internationals to win (which by implication negates your remarks)but from my reading of the signs, this is a "China only" deal.