I reckon I'm pretty close to the mark. Tenure bearing royalty...

I reckon I'm pretty close to the mark.

Tenure bearing royalty obligations is of lesser value than tenure not bearing a royalty obligation.

The point is that CC Directors are moving assets that are a cash drain (tenure spend obligations) on them (and which require material exploration spend on in order to retain - or they will have to relinquish) into BCB and having BCB holders pay/carry for a fair chunk of this forward obligation. If one were to take a view that the tenements were not going anywhere and wanted to have others shoulder some of the risk and cost, then rolling them into a controlled entity is not a bad idea. You also need to look at the tenement relinquishment schedule - will probably be something like 35% of the sub-blocks to relinquish at halfway point then another 50% IF the tenure is renewed - so the land area you can retain even if money held by BCB is put into exploration will have limitations. However an informed SH should know this as it is de riguer in exploration. The ultimate point is whether they can get critical mass of mineable underground coal to support a project, or you'll just end up with a patch of ground with coal in it which may or may not be defined in accordance with the JORC code.

If BCB needs to raise cash to drill these additional tenements then chunking up on equity before another issue / fundraising is not a bad idea from Management's perspective, in order to continue to hold material equity after any such requirement.

I do agree is that BCB management have little choice but to see this through once it has started as they personally will experience some loss if they are unable to ultimately sell or develop. I'd see this as a more realistic motivator than "true believers in the BCB story" however. And exactly what that latter phrase means, remains to be properly articulated and seen by all of us.