More PonderingAs an update (I should check my sources more thoroughly) while the CBGDF opening website page does indicate the ESIA was to be out by the end of the 2nd ¼ 2017 (this week) the most recent presentation for June, however, now states this will not in fact occur until the 4th ¼ 2017. As a timeline this is not good if you believe that a sensible miner would wait for this in-depth study of the project’s environmental impact and infrastructure and energy build out etc., to be presented, before making a major mine go ahead decision. NG has to make its decision by the end of this week (re the 90 day decision from date of BFS presentation). I think they would be foolish if they said yes with what may be coming. However, if they say no then even a joint NG and CBGDF decision to sell would I fear see a long time before getting any response.
Note there is the period after the ESIA presentation for company analysis and then it is opened up for public comment. This may wel be followed by what could be lengthy legal challenges in the French courts from those who I imagine will be well funded by wealthy environmental organizations/individuals. Again, apart from very small scale illegal mining (about 300 sites as of Dec 2016) this will be the first major mine in the huge relatively untouched FG rainforest. Thus, it will be seen as major confrontation between large scale mining and environmentalists in this area. Newmont in particular will be watching very closely with their on-going low key exploration in FG and IAG with their already stopped Camp Caiman project. Both major miners might upset their shareholders with a bid for a potential prime mover project, which is mired in a legal battle. After the mistakes made in the last gold price surge by majors it is unlikely that anyone today is going to ‘throw’ $100s of Mills., at anything less than legally secure projects with no encumbrances still to be resolved.
Alta, I think a little tongue in cheek commented on how the CBGDF Nevada project may well end up financing the FG mine. That comment may be more prescient than might at first be thought. In fact, if my sense is correct (and with a large CBGDF shareholding at stake I hope I am very wrong) it may be in CBGDFs interest (and sharehlders) to consider the possibility of breaking the Nevada/USA and FG projects into two separate companies so that the SP can reflect the value in each as more and more news either increases or negatively impacts the SP. Even an increasing gold price may not help a stock where it is perceived it is has negatives that will take time to overcome. Also, any interested party in CBGDFs Eastside project might not want to be involved with a company who has a Russian mid-tier major partner and a undecided foreign project. There are afterall, a number of possible JVs available in Nevada/Utah etc., so political ‘clutter’ is not something that a major would want to be concerned about.
However, this worst case scenario is not all bad if you believe that we are in the beginnings of a new gold bull market that may have several years to run. A new CBGDF Nevada company would be enticing to a major with its resource of approx. 720,000 ozs., constrained, plus approx. the same amount not included in the resource estimate according to Guistra, plus a further 270,000 historic ozs., recently bought and more drill results out in the next ¼. If CBGDF Nevada can blow through to a 2.5-3 million oz., resource with lots still to drill then a JV is well on the cards. Further, you also now have a FG CBGDF stock that is takiing its time gradually putting challanges while it also grows its 4 mill plus resource hopefully accompanied by an escalating gold price all reflected in the SP. Sometimes the value of the parts is much greater than the whole so let’s hope Guistra is prepared to be a patient yet proactive man; as usual just my HO - any discussion welcome.