Pete.
I am not trying to discredit your theory or bash your ideas - I hope Petresa is either allowing Alcar to build or their site, and\or they are SIAM.
I am just trying to engage in logical discussion.
Although you have made some positive points about the location of Petresa matching what has been released in NR's by ACMG, I would like to address a couple of things that, to me, do not point to Petresa.
1)from the FAQ's section of ACMG website:
The overall project requires a cash input of $282M in addition to the funds already raised. The amount has now been secured through a new financing deal with a South East Asia consortium.
Although Petresa is based in many continents across the world, they are not located in SEA and could not be considered a SEA consortium
2) Why would Dr. C have travelled to SEA to sign the agreement?
Wouldn't that have been done in Quebec or Spain?
3) Petresa is a very large private company - why would they not instantly take ACMG private?
The only advantage I could see for SIAM (whoever they are) to let ACMG remain public, would be if they need to raise capitol down the road. Petresa would not have any need to raise public money.
so... I can see because of the environmental values of each company, or their close proximity to each other in Trois Riviere, and because of the NR that descibes ACMG's new plant location, that Petresa could be where ACMG's new plant is\will be built.
If this is the case, I think SIAM is still a company, or group of investors, based in Thailand, or SEA.
Is there a possibility that BHL is SIAM?
MBL
Posted by: pinkeyepete
In reply to: MrBigLoser who wrote msg# 22649 Date:5/12/2007 1:19:24 PM
Post #of 22890
Petresa vs PCI chem.
PCI doesn't offer international exposure, and Petresa is owned in majority by the largest petrochem company in Spain with operating plants on 4 contenents. Only Petresa could be connected to Siam.
Location of plant discription said about 1/4 mile off hwy30. PCI is several kilometers off hwy30, and Petresa's driveway is only about 1/4 mile off.
PCI is a public traded company and the LOI would have required a PR if they were part of Siam.
PCI would have also been required to PR a sublease of property if it involved any income generation, or asset alocation (property) to Alcar.
When you read the discription of who/what Siam investors are, you'll find it matches up well with Petresa's owners, and doesn't apply to PCI at all.
I submit my opinion that only Petresa could fit the site location discription, and have ties to Siam.
