hi metalduster, everyone knows the basic reasoning behind all...

hi metalduster,

everyone knows the basic reasoning behind all the litigation.

i can not see fault with what mr gandel has said in his address.

from mr gandel's address:

"Firstly, all directors believed that the price achieved for the settlement was fair and reasonable in the circumstances."

i accept this except the circumstances behind the sale is what interests me though.

2014 april start-up and straight into stockpiling in late 2014 was an interesting set of events and was not what i think ags shareholders were expecting to say the least.

late 2014 into 2015 wasn't a bad time for uranium miners.

2015 marked the first year of global mining cost deflation since 2010.

2015 saw the aussie dollar tank.

2015 saw productivity improvements for a lot of miners e.g. ranger implemented changes in staff rosters to improve productivity.

2015 saw a fall in sulphuric acid prices - prices fell by an average of 20% year on year in 2015 compared with the average price of the previous 4 years. furthermore, the fall in diesel prices cut acid logistics costs, favouring mines in remote locations (like four mile) for which logistics account for a larger share of mine-gate acid costs.

and the list goes on.

lets also not forget what heathgate resource's sentiments were with regard to the uranium market as per their submissions to the regulators in south australia.

the stockpiling justification stuff is the stuff that confuses me... can anyone help me out here?