a few years ago, NAK was at $7, rallied to $20 on metals prices, then has fallen below $3. The project is huge and has environmental concerns that have been knwon for a long time. an environmental agency put out a report indicating that those concerns may take longer to resolve.
SA and PVG are next door to each other and will have similar capex requirements. the only difference is that PVG trades for 2+ times as much as SA and a portion of PVG is high grade. i think its pretty far fetched to assume PVG can build a mine on its own, but if they do then SA will benefit from PVG's investment in infrastructure.
With PVG costing twice as much as SA, you are really assuming that their mine will be built sooner with less dilution. I dont like the risk/reward tradeoff of that because both SA and PVG require a 20 mile train tunnel to be cut. if all of PVG was high grade, it would be one thing but the portion which is high grade is less than half and not large enough by itself to justify the capex. so in other words, why invest in PVG when you can invest in SA?
the infrastructure needs at NAK are less challenging/expensive because they are not in high mountains but the negative is that they are in the 'watershed' for the salmon fishing area. If i had to guess, i would say NAK gets built first because its in Alaska rather than BC and because it already has a project partner. The environmental issues are nothing to sneeze at but will get worked through with time and money. however, currently, the stocks are priced like PVG will be built very soon and NAK next to never, and SA somewhere in between.