RE:RE:RE:RE:Nothing From Nordgold?Guistra stated prior to the presentation of the BFS that CBGDF had already 1) taken on a third party to analyze the BFS after it came out so as to identify ways in which the IRR presented in the BFS could be improved, without further drilling. However, we are also waiting for 2) the ESIA which should be out by the end of June and could also indicate ways in which mine construction $$ might be saved via infrastructure development (i.e., water and energy utilization, etc.). Further, 3) 36 holes have/are being drilled and analyzed and will give an exploration extension of about 4.5 kms (approx. doubling the length of the current pit), along with I believe the one new hole to depth that basically goes nearly twice the depth that the BFS used.
The ESIA is required for any mine development and is therefore supported by both NG and CBGDF. Yet, it does appear to be CBGDF (not NG) who implemented and paid for the third party analysis of the BFS and likewise, the exploration drilling outside the pit. It may well be that NG has control over the mine project pit itself as both the pit manager (which they took over from CBGDF last Jan., I believe) and 55% majority holder of the BFS identified gold reserve/ resource. Therefore, this may be why we have not heard anything about infill drilling within the pit, because of NG’s controlling interest in this specific area. After all, at $1.1 mill to conduct infill drilling CBGDF should have jumped at the opportunity to add 250 – 500,000 ozs into the P&P category (i.e., providing $1-200 per oz. at a buyout sale or the increased value for raising mine building $$). Infill inaction might therefore relate to NG not wanting to increase the buyout $$ of CBGDF either via a lump sum payment or by having to pay more and more of the mine development; in fact, adding P&P directly impacts how much NG will have to spend on the mine to be able to dilute CBGDF down to a 10% interest and thus a 2% smelter royalty).
So, we are waiting for the ESIA report (which I think may still cause some environmental issues/delays) coupled with the third party suggestions for improving the IRR and the drill results. Hopefully, CBGDF will try to bring these data sources out in close proximity for maximum impact on project value. With all these potential catalysts arriving soon will we see any impact on the SP? Interestingly the SP has been trading in the 55-60 US cent range for several weeks (I can understand those buying but not selling at this price, unless we have computers/traders in action with a reason outside of immediate profit for their activity). I repeat again, I do not consider Guistra will contemplate when an offer does arrive any premium based on SP (unless we stand at least double today’s SP) as often occurs with explorers without the data and prime status that CBGDF has.
I believe as others have mentioned NG is supposed to declare their intentions towards this project within 90 days of the BFS. This means I think by the end of this coming week! However, I would have thought they would wait till they had digested the ESIA which according to the CBGDF website is out the end of the 2nd half of 2017 (this week!). If NG say no to building then I assume we are fast tracked to a project sale, but if they say yes to construction we are still left debating where this project will eventually go. This week hopefully will be very interesting unless as mentioned by previous entry we are just kept waiting.