more twists than a hollywood blockbuster.

So, the BMG J/V saga continues, now the Liquidators are being taken to court.

Mr. Hillam is having another attempt to get his hand back into the Hawsons project and I wonder why going after the liquidators is his stratergy?

I think shareholders should think about the following issues before they vote:

* After months and months of trying to sell the BMG share of Hawsons, the offer that the liquidator accepted was from Silvergate backed Pure Metals and for $3.25 million in cash and for the money that BMG still own CAP, which I think is around $3 million. So, we have an offer of say $6 million for 40% of Hawsons.

* Cap management constantly refer to Hawsons as having a NPV of $3.2 billion. Lets discount the NPV by 50%, to $1.6 billion. Is an offer of $6 million for 40% ownership of a $1.6 billion project acceptable to shareholders?

* Did Puremetals provide any details on how the would take Hawsons to the next stage of development and is something that shareholders should want to see from a J/V partner?

* When Silvergate called the last EGM, CAP CEO Nick Sheard took up $300,000 in shares, by excecising 2,000,000 options at 15c. Hardly a move by a guy who is not committed to the Company.

* Not including the offer of $6 million made to the liquidators, Silvergate has spent approx $16-20 million on CAP / Hawsons, through investing in BMG, legal costs fighting Hillam over BMG and buying 19% of the issued capital in CAP. Include the $6 million offer, they have spent the equivilant of CAP's current market cap chasing what Hawsons has in the ground.

* CAP's cash position is well known, call it $4.5 million, plus the GUF shares (another million). If management do a placement of 15% issued capital, say 15 million shares at 20c, CAP will net $3 million and would be able to match the Pure Metals / Silvergate offer, plus have enough cash to carry on for at least another 12 months.

* Why did (IMO) Silvergate / Pure metals come in with a low bid offer when they knew CAP has a pre-emptive right to match the offer? Why did they not make the offer say $5 million plus the money owed by BMG to CAP? This would have made it much harder for CAP to match the offer? The only reasons I can think of is that they don't see the value in making a higher offer, they don't think CAP can raise the funds, they don't have the money needed or their stratergy was way off the mark. Given that they have spent close to $20 million to date, I think the first scenario is off the mark.

* What has changed so dramatically that Silvergate have gone from wanting Nick to continue and singing his praises to wanting him out of the Company?

* Why has Silvergate / Puremetals gone from wanting to communicate with shareholders via Hot Copper to being silent.

* What scenario will return the best value for shareholders? Is it CAP owning Hawsons 100% or is it CAP owning 60% and someone else owning 40%? I would prefer CAP to own the project 100%.

* If CAP excercise their pre-emptive right, buy the 40% back via a capital raising, would they be able to find an investor to take the whole placement, which would keep placement costs down and also dilute Silvergates holding? If this happened, I wonder what Silvergate would do?

* Does the current CAP team have a history of looking after shareholders well being?

* What benefits can the proposed Silvergate Directors bring to other shareholders?

There is a lot to think about and I will be making the trip from Sydeny to Brisbane again to attend the meeting.

I just hope that we can get the focus back on getting our ore out of the ground and creating shareholder value after this next meeting.