catsobig you said:

"Are you saying NOT should offer 2.00 or a 1-1 share exchange??"

My reply:

No, I am saying Cliffs should offer a minimum of $2.00 because FWR's potential is lost to the FWR holder once FWR goes to Cliffs.

NOT doesn't have to offer as much because FWR holders would still benefit from FWR's assets even though those assets would be in NOT.

The following statement was in my post and I am unable to fathom how you came to the conclusion you did:

"Given that the resource will be lost to FWR shareholders in a takeover by Cliffs the takeover price by Cliffs should be at least $2.00. NOT still has the superior offer."

Note that the $2.00 mentioned is with reference to a takeover by Cliffs not NOT.

Remember that 1+1=3 and maybe a lot more.

All IMHO.