The layering of ESG throughout the PDI presentation, I believe to a certain extent is largely window dressing & behind closed doors, especially with the Guinea government, is probably an elaborate tick a box matter & a useful lever to dial in some more $ to lubricate negotiations. Obviously there is much more to it than this, but it's not going to be an insurmountable barrier by any means.
I think the ESG regulations to be complied with are not a big deal & will probably be dealt with along the lines of a duck test, to quote a line out of Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room "Fortunately, there are specific accounting rules for what constitutes a duck: yellow feet, white covering, orange beak. So you take the dog and paint its feet yellow and its fur white and you paste an orange plastic beak on its nose, and then you say to your accountants, 'This is a duck!". I've work in Asia/Pacific on aid & development projects since 2,000 & there is a lot of this stuff that goes on between donors, governments & contracting agencies to get project negotiations sorted & implementation started. I think also that most Australian mining companies have a better approach (now days) to 'doing the right thing' in regard to ESG. I've seen first hand damage done to the Ok Tedi & Fly Rivers in PNG by BHP & such negligence has largely been ruled out these days by governance regulations on the sector & stakeholder expectations.
I suspect that the National Park will end being vastly enhanced by what PDI brings to the table with the mine eg chimps possibly shifted to a more chimp friend location if required, rehabilitation of damaged areas from alluvial mining, major cash injection into the Dept of Enviro etc.
I do not believe the ESG is going to have a major impact on PDI or its earning potential which will eventually be massive.
PDI Price at posting:
20.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)