BSG bolnisi gold nl

ocampo to go ahead, page-4

  1. 7,196 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 301
    It would appear to me that they are throwing their interpretation of the agreement in GAM's face on a number of issues in today's release,namely-
    1)That GAM has to provide title security for the debt financing(we already knew this but it would appear that until GAM gets the BFS & a notice from BSG that the joint venture is to be formed that GAM is not willing to provide the title security-I probably don't blame them)
    2)That GAM sign the Spanish agreement as detailed(again a reference to the agreement).
    3)BSG saying that they cannot be thrown out of the agreement on 25Mar04 if production isn't up to the agreed throughput rate-in their interpretation that is not in the earn-in agreement.
    4)They have made a statement that the throughput rate only has to be at the agreed 1.25mil t/pa for a five day period to earn their 60%-it would probably be possible to achieve this rate with a 1mil(or lower) t/pa plant for five days and then drop the rate back to the lower designed capacity of the plant which would cost less in CapEx.
    To me BSG is spoiling for a fight as they haven't been able to get GAM to agree to some changes to the agreement such as the cheaper plant and maybe dropping those penalty monthly payments of $C100k as from 25Sep03.
    They're just my thoughts in reading between the lines-maybe hopefully I'm reading too much into it.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.