Member Info for jimb2

@Dallasdaz,

I wouldn't make any investment decision on AI - just posting what was returned, I do believe the returned information on the process in the courts and the different scenarios is close, as to the accuracy of the figures I wouldn't pay much attention to.

And for KDNC AI = Copilot

let’s estimate **Cadence Minerals’ potential damages claim** using a proportional valuation approach based on their **30% stake** in the Mexilit and Megalit joint ventures.

---

## 🧮 Step-by-Step Valuation Estimate

We’ll use Ganfeng’s hypothetical DCF valuation of the Sonora Lithium Project as a base, then adjust for Cadence’s ownership and strategic position.

### 1. **Base Project Valuation (from Ganfeng’s DCF)**

- **Total NPV (after capex)**: ≈ **US$1.5 billion**

- This reflects full project value assuming successful development and no mitigation.

### 2. **Cadence’s JV Stake**

- Cadence owns:

- **30% of Mexilit S.A. de C.V.**

- **30% of Megalit S.A. de C.V.**

- These entities hold **7 of the 10 key concessions** in Sonora Lithium.

- Assuming these JV concessions represent **80% of the project’s value** (based on resource distribution and feasibility inputs), Cadence’s indirect share is:

\[

\$1.5B \times 80\% \times 30\% = \$360 million

\]

### 3. **Adjustments for Control and Risk**

- Cadence is a **minority, non-operating partner**, which may reduce valuation due to:

- Lack of control over development

- Dependency on Ganfeng’s decisions

- Tribunals often apply a **minority discount** of 20–30% in such cases.

\[

\$360M \times (1 - 25\%) = \$270 million

\]

### 4. **Alternative Valuation: Sunk Costs**

- If the Tribunal finds the project too speculative for DCF, Cadence may fall back on **sunk costs**:

- Estimated investment: **£12–15 million** (≈US$15–18 million)

- This would be the **lower bound** of their claim.

---

## 📊 Estimated Damages Range for Cadence

| Scenario | Estimated Claim |

|----------|------------------|

| Full DCF-based claim | **US$270–360 million** |

| With minority discount | **US$250–270 million** |

| Sunk cost fallback | **US$15–18 million** |

---

## 🧠 Strategic Leverage

- If Ganfeng wins a large award, Cadence can **anchor their valuation** to the Tribunal’s findings.

- They may also argue for **loss of strategic upside**, especially given Sonora’s unique position in North American EV supply chains.

AI result Ganfeng/Bacanora

let’s build a hypothetical damages model for the Sonora Lithium project using a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) approach, which Ganfeng is likely to advocate in arbitration.

________________________________________

⚙️ Key Assumptions for DCF Model

Parameter Assumption Notes

Annual Production 35,000 tonnes LCE Based on feasibility studies for Sonora Phase 1

Lithium Price (2025 avg) US$10,500/tonne Reflects current market stabilization

Operating Costs US$4,000/tonne Conservative estimate for Mexican lithium operations

Capex US$420 million Reported development cost for Phase 1

Mine Life 20 years Typical for large lithium deposits

Discount Rate 10% Standard for emerging market mining assets

Start Year 2025 Assuming immediate development absent nationalization

________________________________________

📊 DCF Valuation Estimate

Let’s calculate annual EBITDA and then apply DCF:

• Revenue: 35,000 × $10,500 = $367.5 million/year

• Operating Cost: 35,000 × $4,000 = $140 million/year

• EBITDA: $367.5M – $140M = $227.5 million/year

Using a simplified DCF for 20 years:

• NPV (pre-tax, unlevered) ≈ $227.5M × [1 – (1 + 10%)⁻²⁰] / 10% ≈ $1.94 billion

• Subtracting capex: $1.94B – $420M = $1.52 billion

This would be the upper bound of damages Ganfeng might claim, assuming full expropriation and no mitigation.

________________________________________

⚖️ Tribunal Adjustments

Tribunals often adjust for:

• Political risk: May increase discount rate or reduce valuation

• Development uncertainty: May apply probability weighting (e.g., 70% success)

• Mitigation: If Ganfeng could partner with LitioMX, damages may be reduced

🔍 Adjusted Range

Scenario Estimated Damages

Full DCF, no mitigation $1.5–1.9 billion

With 30% risk discount $1.0–1.3 billion

Sunk cost fallback $400–500 million

________________________________________

Use your own discretion Copilot result - and for KDNC:

If the parties settle before the final award, they agree on a figure privately — the Tribunal may then issue a consent award.

• If no settlement occurs, the Tribunal issues a final award with a binding damages figure

AI breakdown of the latest document:

This decision favors the Claimants because:

• It avoids procedural delay and fragmentation.

• It signals that Mexico’s objections weren’t strong enough to justify early dismissal of any claims.

• Ganfeng’s claims under the Mexico-China BIT remain intact and will be heard on the merits.

However, this does not mean Ganfeng has won the case — it simply means the Tribunal will hear the full dispute without carving out jurisdictional objections first. The merits phase will determine whether Mexico violated its treaty obligations and whether compensation is owed.

lhttps://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1827095.pdf

I used Copilot, you can ask the likely settlement figure - its worthwhile trying for yourself, it's impressive the factors and scenarios it returns.

@Bannor,

I'm following recent form... but still have the bitter recollection of past failings.

@tomcat-14:

Copilot:

"Early in the month" typically refers to the first third of any calendar month—usually from the 1st to around the 10th. It’s a flexible phrase, often used in scheduling, forecasting, or reporting, and can vary slightly depending on context:

Gemini:

The phrase "early in the month" generally refers to the first few days or the first week to ten days of a given month.

The exact timeframe isn't rigidly defined, but it typically suggests:

The beginning of the month: Days 1 through about 7.

The first third of the month: Up to around day 10.

I do like good news Friday's - fingers crossed .

Well not many days left before we can say early October has been and gone, 7:00 AM would be a good time to land that RNS.

If all is going to plan

Again, AI and why I think we withdrew

5. Parallel Proceedings in Mexican Courts

• Mexico said the claimants violated BIT rules by pursuing remedies in Mexican courts.

• Tribunal: Whether this bars arbitration depends on timing and legal interpretation — again, tied to the merits.

last point from AI:

Why the Tribunal Rejected Bifurcation

• No clear time or cost savings: The objections wouldn’t resolve the case early.

• Too intertwined with merits: Most objections require deep factual analysis.

• Efficiency: Better to address everything in a single phase.

This decision means the case will proceed in full, without a separate phase for preliminary objections. If you’d like, I can walk you through the BIT protections Ganfeng is relying on or how ICSID typically handles jurisdictional challenges.

Sounds positive IMHO

To save you time, the latest document breakdown with AI:

Here's a simplified summary of the document you linked — it's *Procedural Order No. 3* in the arbitration case between **Bacanora Lithium, Sonora Lithium, and Ganfeng International** versus the **United Mexican States**, under ICSID Case No. ARB/24/21.

---

### ⚖️ What’s This About?

This order addresses whether the tribunal should **bifurcate** (split) the case to first deal with Mexico’s preliminary objections before moving to the full merits of the dispute.

---

### 🧩 Mexico’s Preliminary Objections

Mexico asked the tribunal to consider six objections separately, arguing it could:

- Save time and costs

- Potentially dismiss some or all of the claims early

These objections include:

1. **Jurisdictional issues** about whether the claimants have legal standing

2. **Corporate structure concerns** — whether UK-based companies can claim damages for Mexican subsidiaries

3. **Treaty interpretation** — whether the claims qualify under the Mexico-China and Mexico-UK BITs

4. **Admissibility** — whether parallel proceedings in Mexican courts violate treaty rules

---

### 🛡️ Claimants’ Response

The companies argued:

- Mexico’s objections are intertwined with the merits of the case

- Bifurcation would not save time or costs

- Their claims are based on shared facts and treaty protections, so splitting the case would be inefficient

---

### 🧠 Tribunal’s Decision

The tribunal **rejected Mexico’s request for bifurcation**, concluding:

- The objections wouldn’t dispose of a substantial part of the case

- Bifurcation wouldn’t materially reduce time or cost

- The objections are too entangled with the merits to separate cleanly

---

So Mexico didn't get there way on this! if you trust the AI interpretation!

You can view documents:

https://www.italaw.com/cases/12371

This probably covers the latest developments:

https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1827095.pdf

I haven't kept up to date but I think we had to drop arbitration in Mexico so all is handled by the ICSID - I'm not 100% sure so on this so anyone wants to check and comment please feel free.

SuperRoty, edgar222,

take a look at KDNC -- June 2025 now x2.5 has been x3.5 --- if you held then -- could be the difference between a 10 bagger or 30 bagger..........or!!

Teaser!!

Something is happening in the background I feel, listen to the few minutes in the Alan Green interview, Evergreen was at the time of the interview something shareholders should be on the lookout for:

https://youtu.be/oVSzBJzUOCc?si=lpdOaNazfItA4VWk&t=457

Maybe a JV/Big brother - maybe our off-taker for Azteca is one!

LOL, that's an easier way @EV_Bull, you managed to post the link without having it scrambled!

Or you can visit the Cadence corporate website then > Investors>Analyst Research and find the Zeus link from there

the Timeline is quoted in the research note dated 09/09/2025

Oops link scrambled: replace the *********** with research-tree .com

@mike12345,

try this link to register:

https://*********************/

i can't share because the pdf is watermarked for personal use:

the note i quoted from was issued 09/09/2025 i receive by email once setup, you can search back.

The latest Zeus reports states: Cadence is looking to finalise a binding agreement in early October - I would expect that to be before half way through the month..just my expectation of 'early' meaning in the first half, so could be this week or by middle of next week.

EG1 - in the talk with Alan Green just three weeks ago it appears we still had an interest in Evergreen, strange they disposed of it with the knowledge that Azteca would be funded!

https://youtu.be/oVSzBJzUOCc?si=uwR0cf4VZwdH9Ivr&t=442

Finalised agreement early October, any day now if all goes to plan, will they announce who our partner is?

If its one I'm guessing at there's a real potential for them to participate in the entire Amapa project and perhaps that will be announced?

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."