Hello Auminer,
A friend had sent me a private mail via SI containing the information that Mr. Stoch had moved his residency as a form of protest, so I was aware of this, although I admit I learnt after I had purchased my shares. I have had correspondence with Mr. Stoch on the impact of Bill 14 and while it is natural that he should want to minimize what the impact should be, it is also natural that he should provide his most strident arguments in his campaign against Bill 14.
I am not qualified to comment on the true agenda of the government (aside from winning the next election, naturally) or where that balance should be in terms of development or non development; further if the administrative powers granted to landowners and municipalities will result in better balance in environmental decisions. What it does do is to make it much more difficult for mining companies in terms of uncertainty, much more time and bureaucracy, higher costs and head aches generally.
But I would suspect that there is a long list of reasons (I meant abuses and bad ethical decisions by many companies many of which are long longer in existence) as to why this legislation was suggested in the first place, no? Or did Mr. Simard just wake up one day... It would not be surprising that there may be some compromises along the way to enacting the legislation that will make the mining companies a little happier vs. what is on the table today. It is that back room game of power, money and politics.
What I see is a man that took a big risk in deciding to go public knowing that such a thing would result in a backlash from those who would stand to gain from Bill 14 (some municipal officials for example); potential investors (such as yourself?) and especially shareholders who would be harmed and would wonder why he just can't protest privately. Those are substantial risks but he had the courage to speak his conviction publicly. It seems to me that he is a man that is passionate about his business and his way of life?
Why invest in Globex given all of the above? Well, I have a lot of investments located in Mexico that is somehow regarded as the no. 1 safest jurisdiction of amongst all of Latin America/South America, this land of narco-nightmares. In Nunavet we have several major mining companies writing down substantial investments (such as Meadowbank) and I noticed that there are now doubts about Sabina by some; not to mention Kinross who's idea of diversification from Russia and Ecuador is to break the bank to buy the Tasiast project in ....Mauritania?? It seems to be much too simplistic to say 'why should I invest in Quebec ...bill 14'....
So with Globex we have the Chibougamau property that is not impacted by bill 14 per Mr. Stochs, we have TTM that is in Ontario, we have Eco Refractory that potentially could one day be a licensing home run for multi-million oz low grade 'refractory' gold projects regardless of country or continent, as just 3 of many projects. The last NR of the 41 (forty -one, lol!) issued for 2011 has them signing up w/ Stockhouse to get some coverage, where there is none today. I expect this will commence after TTM's PEA is put out. I expect the numbers to be good, but how good who's to say?
It is not hard to see future brokerage coverage, if not for Globex then with subsidiaries as they are IPO'd. Chibougamau in 2012. Then I suspect TTM which also has potential interest from a significant European industrial metals co. that has studied 50 industrial metals and prioritized 8 that it wants to be involved in - 2 of which are what TTM just happens to be about. Perhaps one day that Eco Refractory project, what an interesting IPO that COULD turn out to be ... but I get too far ahead now.
With over 100 properties and over 90% in Quebec (and by the way they forgot to mention the US, New Brunswick), it seems to me that they have great odds of having many properties that will avoid Bill 14, whereas a company with only a small number should be so lucky! |
