Maybe only 2 short term debts, but 2 is a huge number in most...

Maybe only 2 short term debts, but 2 is a huge number in most cases. Even 1 is a lot. Why can the company not get reasonable medium term debt after years? Investors have to ask why we're forced into 2 expensive short term debts.

But you're likely right, that the debts being <10% of the market cap means we should be fairly safe from bankruptcy risk, as a capital raising to pay them down is realistic if cashflow had trouble paying down the debts in time. But in this scenario, there's either debt risk, or dilution risk - both put a lid on the share price. The only way to remove those risks is paying them down, or replacing then with cheap medium-term debt.

Eg. I haven't been rushing to buy. They're not paying down debt, accumulating cash or paying dividends but they're instead making excuses and adding more expensive debt.

Half of the points that LG make seem correct eg. NE costs are adding up, and have forced these debts upon us (the outgoings from NE over several years are literally larger than these debts, I think). With NE having accumulated losses of $XXm in only the past few years that we're been waiting on a sale, you'd want a sale price of >$30m - anything less would prove that we would have been better off trashing it years ago. In the case of NE, I don't know what sale price is realistic - $5m or $100m. Whether they're just haggling on a high price, or if there's nobody willing to pay >$10m.