We appreciate your informative posts as always, and your latest one on Investorvillage is really excellent. I have a couple of questions to you about your relative optimism on the situation in Mongolia and your corresponding pessimism regarding Nevada.
I understand your point that, in legal terms, EGI (ETG)'s interests are more secure than has been stated in recent press releases out of Mongolia. My question to you is, does this secure legal standing really make their interests secure in a country that does not respect legal agreements between foreign companies and is willing to make new laws at any time to override such agreements. In short, does ETG's legal status as trustee in the JV structure really provide security to investors? It seems that the Mongolia assets are a hostage to fortune at this point and Gill's pessimism is warranted. I am concerned, but I acknowledge that you know more about the details, have expertise in the mining field, and have been following the events longer than I have, so your further insights would be greatly appreciated.
Secondly, regarding Nevada, I can see your point that it is hard to make an evaluation. The %grades at Ann Mason and Blue Hill are much lower than in Mongolia and the profit per pound produced is hard to assess. However there does seem to be quite a large amount of copper there in toto, and as the experience in Mongolia underscores to no end, it does lie in a secure jurisdiction. In addition, the presence of other companies in the area suggests the possibility of JV's and economies of scale to reduce costs. So the way I see it (without the benefit of the expert knowledge of mining that you have), Nevada appears to be the better situation that would demand the immediate efforts of ETG, particularly since they have more control there in comparison to OT/Jahvlant/Shivee.
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.
regards and thank you for your posts