Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I realise ramper fort won't answer, as he doesn't appreciate scrutiny, but I think it's quite telling how far from their original positions each rampers has been forced to move. With each month that passes (predictably) without a bid, they have to cover their tracks, pretending they didn't say what they did. Others would find it embarrassing and slink off, but they are all as spineless as novice, so on we go, listening to their chuff.
In other news, Franco CFO said today that they are gathering options for 4 projects in LatAm. We know what two of them are. Who knows on the other two. Any thoughts, or do people not read around solg?
Would oops
Question for someone who might know
If we had received the water licenses required at Cascabel would be be lawfully required to RNS it or wouldn’t it be considered unnecessary?
Fair point Q.
Haters gonna hate 😂😂😂 have a great weekend all and over the month we have moved … wait for it +0.24% that’s it was it really worth all the nonsense posted here by said laurel and hardy ? We all hold waiting for the inevitable first bid, when ? Who knows but locked and loaded here and happy as Larry to have got on at 7p level many moons ago 😉😉😉
Fort, about 9 months ago you were asked why anyone would buy the company without exploitation licence in place. Because your ramping at the time was all about an imminent sale (it still is, embarrassingly!) you claimed unequivocally that they weren't needed. Funny how these brainless rampers change their tune so readily.
Rampers gonna ramp.
Inform the market of what, until the I's are dotted and the T's crossed, we have nothing to say.
I guess much depends on what is left in terms of 'red tape' before development can commence? The likelihood is that the exploitation agreement and the 25 year mine licence are worthless without the environmental permits/permission to develop. It's hard to award the environmental permits if the development plan and affected areas are not known etc etc. We've heard rumours of pipelines being planned and built to export from Alpala. I'm sure Chinese will or are behind any planned infrastructure spend like roads, pipelines, bridges, water works, disposal plans etc etc. Shed loads required in planning a Tier 1 mine.
But the mine life and exploitation agreements absolutely paramount and key to getting this sold.
I suppose it's possible we're in a chicken and egg situation. Funders/jv partners/buyers wouldn't commit until the licences were agreed and the government wouldn't gives us them until we could demonstrate we had the wherewithal to progress. In order to break this circle I can only guess that we were able to provide evidence of intent from interested parties and the government blinked first. But if that's the case, surely the company has a duty to inform the market?
Good afternoon addicknt.
May I suggest that the stories are not conflicting.
Maybe we have the funding through a joint venture.
It would meet the requirements of all statements.
We are not builder's but our partner's are.
We have the finance sorted, so we can obtain the explotation license.
We have the permits and licenses as soon as it's made public.
Just a thought.
It does surprise me why the Japanese or even likes of Elon Musk and co don't take significant investment stakes in Copper / PM mines as supports their business and secures the streams they need when rest of competition could be struggling for supply. We've seen major issues post covid with car firms suffering due to chip supplies. Same thing is looming for car firms in 2027/2028 when copper likely twice todays price levels.
DM, painful it most certainly is. I've never understood why this company is, and always has been, incapable of providing clear and coherent messaging. Is there something unique about it that makes the task too difficult? I don't think so.
Last week we had two pieces of excellent news, which were milestones in our progress. And yet here we are with more unanswered questions and a government putting out press releases that don't tally with what we've been told. How is that even possible? Don't they coordinate these things? Apparently we've got all necessary permits and licences - but we haven't. We've committed to nearly 5bn of investment and yet we know we don't have it and there's no way on gods earth we can raise that money on our own. The whole thing is totally confusing.
Please don't think I'm giving up on the project because I'm not and I can only assume we're much closer to resolving these issues than some of us may think.
"such technical solvency and prestige as Solgold". Is there another Solgold?
"Currently, the project has the corresponding environmental and water permits". Not according to the company.
"Construction will begin in 2025". Hmm.
Why do we always have so many contradictions and such a lack of clarity? Is it any wonder the share price is so low?
Thank you rcgl2.
Good afternoon DinnerMoney, that's the bit I read.
Thought the RNS said we had the explotation license, but will take your word that it's not on SEDAR.
However it is normal to have financing in place to get the equivalent license in oil and gas.
DM - ministry statement is here (well, their press release, which I assume is the statement):
https://www.recursosyenergia.gob.ec/ministerio-de-energia-y-minas-suscribe-acta-de-negociacion-con-solgold-previo-a-la-firma-del-contrato-de-explotacion-minera-del-proyecto-cascabel/
"Durante la vida del proyecto se estima una inversión de USD 4.882 millones."
"During the life of the project, an investment of USD 4,882 million is estimated." (Google translation)
Good afternoon DinnerMoney.
If you are correct then Reuters have got it badly wrong.
Maybe Solgold have been raising finance in the background, and the Ecuadorian government is there as a guarantor if required.
Otherwise I cannot think how we got the explotation license.
What's the point?
His last two efforts have been a complete waste of time....
Happy to take questions from investors and then ducks them...
I think I preferred Nick's dull delivery and hysterical optimism...
No new website, but that will probably be a cosmetic makeover...
Meanwhile thanks Fort for returning us to SOLG...the climate debate us much more suited to AFC or CWR boards...
Q, it must then be the world's best kept secret that SOLG has managed to access $4.8bn in funding. Come on, you're living on another planet if you seriously believe that to be the case.
No one believes SOLG will be building a mine at Cascabel, or hiring in civil engineers to do so on their behalf.
Bit more to it than that Jezzoo.
I know in oil and gas you have to have funding available before you go to the construction stage or you don't get licenced.
I was unsure on mining, but the Reuters story seems to suggest it's similar.
I've just agreed to buy the Albert Hall for £2.4 billion.
Any one lend me a tenner ?
Surely Maxit et al need to issue themselves the 100m CGP shares at 16p first before revealing the mind plan and chinese (or another) bid or funding deal lol!
Now what could give them the basis or premise to issue 100m shares to their buddies on the cheap??? Oh ... hang on a moment... didn't Ecuador gov say they wanted $25m on commencement of construction???
The opportunities for all 'in the know' to make a bucket load out of this (and helps accept a lower offer) is obvious to all. Scott and co have already bagged a ridiculous amount at 17p.
Can't wait to see this unfold as there is no doubt about it in mind ... Alpala is changing hands soon and that would be the only reason the Ecuador gov would be signing off the red tape IMHO!
Scott will update the market on his mine plan soon enough but lets face it... it's a pointless update unless it's supported with sale process/SR outcome or both etc.
Good morning SharketMare, unless Reuters have this completely wrong.
We have agreed to invest 4.882 billion dollars during Cascabel's useful life.
This is what got us the explotation license.
Good morning SharketMare, unless Reuters have this completely wrong.
We have agreed to invest 4.882 billion dollars during Cascabel's useful life.
This is what got us the explotation license.
Quady, given that we are on track to fail to meet the commitments of the IPA which required us to invest several hundred million across Cascabel by the end of this year, do you really think that the Ecuadorian government believe SOLG has the capability to raise $4.8bn to develop the mine?
Capability aside, they will know that SOLG has no desire to build Cascabel, because our CEO has repeatedly stated we are not mine builders. I am sure that Scott has assured the Ecuadorians that they are not about to put their faith in a mining minnow to develop one of the most critically important assets Ecuador has to its name.
The government will want Cascabel in the hands of a major with deep pockets, that has a proven track record of mine building, and one who doesn't have a CEO that keeps telling people they have no intention of building a mine.