AngloGold & OGX J.V. Considerations

G'Day Q-Lets expand things a bit here -for some considerations & some clarifications.
First off AngloGold Ashanti had/has 36 months to complete the balance owing being
$7,160,000 USD to satisfy the 70%Anglo -30% OGX earn in agreement FROM THE
COMPLETION OF FORMAL DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF SEPTEMBER -2017.

ASX-Release -6th Sept 2107
Underwritten Rights Issue with AngloGold Ashanti Support
Extract -Quote-"Final documentation for the AngloGold Earn-in Agreement is expected
to be completed by the end of September", with drilling scheduled to begin at
Sertão shortly thereafter.

Further down you will see another REF.
Quote-In light of AngloGold completing the early payment of A$3.0M, Orinoco agrees that
any annual staged spending milestones will be removed and the only obligation of
AngloGold is to complete the amended total exploration spend (i.e. US$7.16M as noted above)
by the end of 36 months "from the date of the formal execution of the Earn-in Agreement".



Following "execution" by AngloGold of the "Amended MOU" with Orinoco, AngloGold will be entitled to appoint "two nominees" to the Board of
Orinoco.





OK-Several considerations apply.
1) The first is as far as I can tell no such formal final documentation was completed &
signed if some one can locate/prove this reference then good
-please give Reference to ASX release.

2)Anglo have 36 months to complete the earn in 7.16 mil USD owing  from the
signing of formal contract -if no such signing occurred then there is no
36 month start date- so 36 months to complete from when ?

3) Drilling did NOT commence at Sertao .

4) Again it clearly states following the "EXECUTION" of the "AMENDED MOU"
with Orinco AngloGold will be entitled to appoint "two nominees" to the
Board of Orinoco.

Did AngloGold APPOINT TWO NOMINNIE DIRECTORS TO THE OGX
-BOD-NO!
Would AngloGold Ashanti -have appointed two of its own as Nominee
Directors to the OGX-BOD -so as to ensure its interests OF COURSE it
would have- no brainer -did they NO
This is very strong indication the formal contractual documentation
was never signed or they surely would have.

Its further interesting in the original MOU
ASX release 7th February 2017.
Quote extract below highlights .　
In addition to the Corporate Investment and the Faina Exploration JV, AngloGold will have the right
to negotiate an agreement to earn up to a 50% interest in the Cascavel Gold Mine "FOR A PERIOD
OF NINE MONTHS".

Anglo Gold invested $5.9 mil AU in exchange for a 15% stake in OGX & one very
interesting key point ATT -was in addition AngloGold was given the right to
NEGOCIATE an earn-in OR acquisition of up to 50% of the Cascavel
Gold Mine .

Did AngloGold complete this earn -in or acquisition of up to 50% of the
Cascavel Gold Mine -WITHIN THE STIPULATED 9 MONTH TIME FRAME
NADDA!
NOTE - this nine month period expired 7th November 2017.

Further considerations .
So Cascavel is 100% owned water tight by Orinoco Gold -OGX .

Considerations
What was OGX's situation at or about the time of the expiry time frame
in November 2017 ?
Why were so many errors "Known to exist with the Cascavel Gold processing facility"
left un-rectified ?

Why were the recommendations by world leading expert consultants Experts contracted
in the original commissioning period by the previous BOD-" NOT ACTED UPON'?

The recommendations were specificate ATT its not coincidental that the recommendations
made were the implementation of a small ball mill to crush mineralised
ore feed to a smaller micron crush to enhance the liberation of gold
& thus enhance recovery than that which the tertiary crusher within
the gravity circuit was capable of .

Note even though a small ball mill was NOT acquired & implemented by the previous
BOD whom very strangely did not act upon the advice they had been given by the very
same experts they contracted ?
Why is that again?

Thankfully our current management has recognised this advice had NOT been acted
upon & trialed small hammer mills concluding after trials had been completed that
clearly to proved up that a finer micron crush does indeed liberate more gold inline
with recommendation made by leading consulting experts & as such have prioritised hammer mill implementation thus achieving the same said recommendations by
utilising hammer Mills.

Why was the gravity plant left with known issues UNRECTIFIED- kept running
that resulted in UNRECOVERED Gold Going To Tailing For an unrealistically justified extended period of time- draining OGX of capital, as there clearly was no chance
of any positive revenue being generated given the known issues with the plant.

Any way some thoughts & considerations .
I could do a tougher summary though the post is long enough already.

Quick one- do we have all the answers NO -is OGX in a far better situation than that
which it was -YES.
Will a formal agreement be made with Anglo ?
Win for holders if it does as exploration potential is clearly huge and therefore
discovery of a significant resource is enhanced with a suitable J.V agreement .

Lets face it Anglo could have negotiated  50% in Cascavel -but let it lapse- so you
can conclude AngloGold are indeed all about the bigger picture factor ,
being discovery potential within tenements approx. x 50 held by OGX.
   
If a J.V it does NOT eventuate then so be it -there are other large cap miners
for instance local heavy weight major YANMANA GOLD would be watching
closely how exploration events unfold .

Note with commercial production just commencing at cascavel & the utilisation
of the exact same recommendations made by consulting experts I have little doubt
we will very likely soon become a profitable gold miner.
Just how profitable will depend on margins-will their be future issues YES , is there unknown & Known risks -YES.
Hey that's Gold Mining & every investor has to do their own research & make there
personal determination of the perceived risks they are willing to take on .


imo-gltah
salt