RE: RE: RE: RE: Difficult? No takeover 2Guys:
I state the he will do a good job drilling because his interests in doing a good job are more incentived than that of an outside driller. He owns 6 million shares of BGM, his wife owns shares, he has options and warrants, etc. Since he wants to maximiza their value, he will ensure his drilling company will do the best job possible for BGM. That is my reasoning on that point.
You then state "there wasn't enough data to come up with an acceptable 43-101 report by BCSC". this is an example of what I see as misleading. There certainly was enough data but PG did not have enough time to complete the first 43-101 completely. He was under a 45 day deadline. Now he has the time to produce his magnum opus.
You then ask "Can you prove that the drilling was efficient and effective". Yes, I have a geologist of 45 years who says we have 12.3 million ounces at Cow Mountain and a billionaire who wants to put another $117.5 million dollars into the company (meaning that he believes the 12.3 million ounces is real). That is proof to me of effective drilling.
BGM did not "need" an arm's lengtjh loan. Under a partial revocation they can do an equity raise. The loan is better deal though (no warrants).
I accept the idea that granting all of the cmpany's assets as collateral is uncomfortable. But in a short period this loan will be extinguished. Production has begun and BGM expects to produce 20-30,000 ounces over the next 6 months. The loan and it's interest will be trivial if they can produce at industry average costs.
Cheers