Seals hi,Jordinson did not inherit a "dead" asset, at least not...

Seals hi,

Jordinson did not inherit a "dead" asset, at least not in the legal sense for he continued to call the cancellation of the agreements a "purported cancellation".

Faced with the choice of

a) legally enforcing the agreements through arbitration
b) keeping the old agreements and waiting for a new business friendly secular regime to re-instate them (under threat of litigation?)
c) throwing away the economic rent of the mine in return for an inferior profit sharing agreement that cannot start until Iran's economy is mended/a new secular business friendly regime is installed.

Jordinson has chosen option c. Option c brings a benefit at about the same time as option b, but the benefit of option c is zillions of times smaller than that in option b, and of course the time left to receive the benefit subject to the new inferior profit sharing agreement in option c is reduced to 25 years minus however many years it takes for Iran to get the mine up and running. Only a brain-dead person from Rasht could choose option c, IMO, mainly because the share price gains from it don't start until the same time as they would in option b.

P.S. I accept ultimately the economic rent of the mine is not ours in the sense the Iranian Govt. has the right to tax it, but it is nice to know that if that was the route they chose to follow to remove it from us that they would have to do the same to other mining businesses owned by the IRGC.