the key risk is debt

Those arguing that BLY is 'good value' because the share prices are trading significantly below NTA are discounting the key risk in my opinion: the company's debt.

If there was no or little debt, I would be buying BLY because they could just 'sit' on their assets.

But with high levels of debt they cant do this. They have to generate cash flow to finance the debt.

As has been mentioned in other threads, NTA is useless if BLY becomes a FORCED SELLER of its tangible assets, and the market price for those assets is significantly less than the stated asset price, especially as a forced seller.

Let me give you a very simple scenario:
I need to flog off this bit of mining equipment, the cost price is $100, the market price might be say $90, no problem only 10% difference. But there is a very small pool of buyers buying this stuff at the moment because future demand is so uncertain. But I have to sell it to finance the debt, so I go into the market place. Any offers, need a quick sell. So some smart player out there says yeah, but I can only give you $40. Take it or leave it, im not that fussed. So the asset is 'force sold' for $40.

This is just one scenario, there are other scenarios as well:
what level of 'repair' needs to be done on the equipment in order to sell it, is the asset net of depreciation actually equal to market price in the current environment for 'used equipment'.

Conclusion:
I am only happy to buy the Ben Graham type plays when
(a) there is a deep pool of buyers for the underlying assets or
(b) there is minimal debt, so the company can just sit on the assets, and go into maintenance mode