Can someone explain how an African nations government wanting money to mine gold in their country is seen as sovereign risk and extortion but an Australian government accepting a payment 'cough cough' of a school transfer for hopefully mining concessions is seen as just good business and commitment to local iniatiatives in a low risk country?
Lets face it, anywhere RSG has gold it's going to have to 'pay to play' if it wants to extract it.
Every country they operate is as corrupt as the next, all that changes is the price they have to pay to extract it and Africa is cheaper, the argument that there is somehow more sovereign risk and should be priced accordingly is flogged to death on any RSG thread but why does it only apply to African plays?
Ann: Ravenswood Update, page-11
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 5 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add RSG (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
43.5¢ |
Change
0.020(4.82%) |
Mkt cap ! $1.543B | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 42.5¢ | 44.5¢ | 42.0¢ | $10.17M | 23.38M |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | 252583 | 43.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 43.5¢ | 265791 | 4 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.10pm 29/11/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| RSG (ASX) Chart |
