seems to me, you have answered your own question:
"If the talk is not directed at a share issuance or investment then it may not be considered ruled by the 43-101 or the SEC."
You may have Burnstone and Ivanhoe confused...? The N-S vein comments concern the Ivanoe Nevada USA mine while Burnstone/SouthGold mine is in S Africa.
The Ivanhoe mine requires NO further GBG investment. Hecla is required to fund ALL US$23M required to bring this mine into production. GBG has over US$15M cash in bank per my recollection (did not to go to secinfo to get the exact number). All Burnstone capex required for remainder of this year should be well under US$5M, IMO. Thus, GBG has no need for cash anytime soon.
FWIW, GBG IR claims several investment banks have offered them bought deals (i.e. PP) in the past few weeks, all of which have been declined. GBG really has no need for any additional cash until the Burnstone financing. This will require about US$85M (estimate, exact figure not known) in late 2005 of which over 60% can likely be financed, assuming the bankable feasibility study comes back positive... Ivanhoe mine should be netting over $23M cash flow ($27.55M at $350 gold before GS&A) to finance Burnstone starting in 2005.
Nonetheless, unfortunately, I do fully expect GBG to conduct another financing in 2004, old habits never die and GBG has consistently issued new shares like candy... I wish like heck GBG would internally finance Burnstone, this is viable. GBG really has no need for additional cash ever again, given that Ivanhoe does have the 1M ounce reserve per their feasibility study and $350 gold (Hecla believes they have at least this 1M ounce reserve...)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
