RE:RE:In fill drilling at FG?? You could well be right but I hope not from the perspective of a long term holder.
Again, what interests me is that CBGDF shareholders were not informed of this infill drilling in FG. This suggests to me that it was 1) clearly initiated by NG as the majority owner of the potential mine and 2) as a private company (I believe at least 98% held) NG were not required to inform publicly shareholders re., their FG mining activities. Interestingly, it is CBGDF who brought out this infill news while updating shareholders on the ESIA presentation. According to their recent communique this infill drilling will be completed before the environmental study is presented which is by the end of March (1st ¼) 2018. This does not mean, however, that the infill drill results themselves will be out before the ESIA, though these might impact the ESIC itself, but I don't know enough here.
However, again, I am perplexed as to why NG would try to move approx., a 1 mill ozs., resource into the P&P category at this stage. If they want CBGDF's 45% why would they go ahead and potentially significantly increased the Canadians selling price? If NG were to make a low ball offer in the next 2-3 months then if I were Guistra I would tell NG where to go without their having provided CBGDF access to the infill results; CBGDF does not have to sell. Maybe NG (as in the past) would go hostile and go directly to CBGDF shareholders and try to convince those who want immediate gratification to sell vs those with a longer term perspective?
However, IMHO this would be a very foolish move for a Russian company to make; especially one who has already been challenged in FG over their previously declared mine build out costs which they seriously reduced to apparently preempt the need for public debate (which failed). They would now want to present themselves as being in a hostile battle with the original explorer for FG, while trying to obtain a very controversial mining permit based on their trustworthiness as a mining company?
IMHO the two more likely scenarios are 1) both companies intend to build out this mine and want the strongest reserve possible to enable the best borrowing facility, or 2) both companies are intent on selling out together in the next 1-2 years and want the highest $ per # of oz P&P (1 and 2 could run together). These two scenarios would I believe give CBGDF shareholders a much bigger payoff than the NG takeover attempt.