Nice post, WTT. I'm not discounting it entirely, but I'd be...

Nice post, WTT. I'm not discounting it entirely, but I'd be surprised if MIN's earlier interest in LJ hinged around trucking from those projects. I'd like to think MIN would have already run those numbers as part of its internal business case modelling before entering into the HoA for LJ.
For me, it was more likely about reserving processing capacity (dominance optionality) within the LJ district for reasonably small initial cost. Kinda like a punt on the prospectively of the broader LJ district, while also picking up ground within the district as part of the deal, incl. the royalties obligations relating to only the tenements included in that deal (i.e. not ore processed from elsewhere).

I find it hard to believe MIN would terminate solely on the grounds that the business case didn't stack-up any more without being able to point directly to something problematic with the LJ deal that is actually defendable. It'll come down to the wording of the contract, which I'm presuming was competently signed-off by the POS Board and its lawyers.

That said, I guess anything is possible. Even if MIN's reasons for termination are indefensible that really only means something if POS, with its weak financial position, is willing and able to test it in court. I doubt that point would be lost on MIN.