The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Bozi, I'm sorry you felt I was being patronizing, I wasn't, I was merely stating the truth.
You say the company hasn't changed its tune, and in part that's true. The RNS also stated it would continue looking for finance; so in that respect it's been consistent. But surely you recognize the significance of the other part? It's a sra change.
Quady's comments are, yet again, beneath contempt.
Hello Bozi and Dart, I unfiltered addicknt to see what the discussion was. ( waste of time, he's now filtered again ).
In an earlier post I made the point that the path that Solgold have announced for Alpala is a revised PFS with higher Gold and Copper prices, and build Alpala.
I also mentioned some people try to twist any announcement to we are selling. What utter tosh.
As you guys correctly say strategic options could mean anything, and doesn't necessarily apply to Alpala.
We are JV'ing 20 tenements, which converts to 10 sites, we are advancing Porvenir, We are preparing the PSF for Alpala, and looking to create a CFP. Many strategic options are already happening on many fronts, with more to come.
For me the interesting part is we didn't take up the extra 50 million from Franco Nevada. I think this is because we don't require it to get to DFS for Alpala, as this money could only have been spent on Cascabel.
Also it means that in the future we can still reduce Franco Nevada's 1% to 0.5%, which is a desirable position, if we can achieve it.
In short the company is doing exactly what the company is saying it's doing.
All the best.
Yet again Addicknt you take the patronising "I should know because I've done it countless times" tone.
I'm well aware of what is meant by the term "strategic options". I'm also well aware that SolGold hasn't publicly admitted to pursuing a different strategy from the one it has in recent years, unless the current investor roadshow is to get that message across.
As i said earlier and you didn't see fit to pick me up on, the company has simply said it will explore and evaluate / review and analyse. It has provided no guarantees or assurances. Any change in strategy or take up of a different option will only be done should there be a viable proposal on the table that creates value for shareholders.
If you all want to speculate that this will happen, as you have been for the last number of months/years then go ahead, but picking out minute phrases in announcements is clutching at the proverbial straw it must be said.
I don't have a preference by the way. I recognise that advanced development and production has many risks, but I'm not going to sit here and say that a full company offer of 60-90p or some sort of exit from Cascabel is a good deal until i see the detail. Some people, like RedKnight i think it was, think it's just a case of going investing in thr "next big thing" like theybare tenapenny in the market. They are not. I want proper value.
UT 402,445 at 30.65...still pretty meaty, but...
Bring on the roadshow and the RNSs...please....?
'Strategic options' does not include production, because that is already a given.
But is does include every other possibility, including J/Vs and outright sale of any or all of the properties or indeed the company itself...
Agree. In almost all cases the phrase ‘strategic options’ means ‘sell’ in stockex speak.
Maybe in this case the term means what Quady thinks ie ‘production’. But I think that would be the first time in the history of stock exchange announcements….
Bozi, I'm assuming you are not a novice investor? That being the case you ought to have understood by now that when a company includes the phrase strategic options it has a very clear and accepted meaning. It's included in order to convey a message; I ought to know, I've written it enough times.
The other thing you should bear in mind is the context of this RNS; if you care to think about it in an objective way, you'll understand the meaning. As it stands, your judgement is being clouded by your own preference.
the route TO production*
That's fair enough Bozi - we're interpreting the same piece of news differently. Personally, I think the inclusion of the term "strategic options" was 1) the first time I've seen this communicated and 2) a signpost to investors that we are now actively exploring opportunities other than financing the route the production for Alpala.
I appreciate that from the RNS itself no *firm* conclusions can be drawn. But I think in combination with WI's comments (who, as mentioned, has a pretty good track record with SOLG predictions) that the business is now seriously considering offloading Cascabel.
Time will tell which one of us is right - I'm not overly fussed either way. Hope you're well.
No I didn't dump a load...c1.43m in total...
Sorry SM but I'm judt not reading this as you are.
"Concurrently with advancing the Cascabel project...", of which the end goal is a word that begins with p.
"...the parties will explore and evaluate..." that just means investigate and look. It doesn't mean act.
"...a range of strategic and financing options to maximise value for the respecrive shareholders..." is pretty vague. Could mean any number of things including the historic plan of a conditional finance package if we're going to be honest. It might mean selling CGPs stake to BHP or someone else. No conclusions can be drawn.
Now if SolGold came out and said "here is your Cascabel PFS showing a hugely profitable mine plan using metal prices far below current spot prices. Now we're going to appoint an investment bank to market this project to the world..." i might be inclined to say you have a point.
However, that is not what has happened. Far from it actually.
No Bozi. I'm basing it on this paragraph from the recent, unprecedented RNS on SOLG and CGP working together cooperatively:
"Concurrently with advancing the Cascabel Project, the Parties will explore and evaluate a range of strategic and financing options focused on maximizing value for their respective shareholders with respect to the Cascabel Project."
As I state in my post, this, combined with Warren Irwin's in effect gloating, leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that SOLG will take Cascabel to production.
SM
So you are basing your entire thesis for the near term strategy of SolGold on the public reaction of one man who has form for massaging the market to suit his own fund's gains?
Hmmm. Solid.
SM ….. spot on
"Dart , CGP / Irwin have always made it clear they want Cascabel sold , recently Irwin said they wanted to see this in the near term……. Now they are happy with direction of the company…. You believe this is because we are going to production and they are going to have to stump up hundreds of millions ….. really ?"
This is the clearest piece of evidence IMO that there has been a step change in the strategy. The RNS highlighting "strategic" options combined with Warren Irwin's recent untrammeled glee should indicate to all shareholders that SOLG is not going to be taking Cascabel to production.
To those who are insistent that the business hasn't changed tack and is still heading to production, how do you explain Warren Irwin's - who is 100% transparent about what he wants to happen - recent delight? Do you simply think he is uninformed and/or bluffing? He has, unfortunately, got a pretty strong track record in predicting future events when it comes to SOLG.
Jerry - all they did was rush to the market with information they were privy to as a minority project partner.
There is no saying whether SolGold would or would not have released the same information.
Nick made the mistake of telling them before the broader market, clearly as he thought their professionalism could be trusted. He learned a valuable lesson from that.
If SolGold investors want to read from that that CGP are the beacon of light then that's their prerogative but it was clear to me what the issue was.
Bozi, the reason why some of the blame has been at NMs door and not CGPs is that in the past couple of years CGP have been proved to be more accurate/truthful than has NM/Solgold. IMO.
So Addicknt, are you trying to suggest that SolGold management has provided assurance to CGP that it will act in a manner that delivers an exit from Cascabel, probably for both parties, in return for being able to tell the market that we're buddies again?
Really? Do you expect us to believe that?
They're welcome to sell their share whenever they want DBW. SOLG has no control over this.
Why should Warren and CGP have any say over what happens at SolGold? They don't hold our stock (Sangha aside).
Why does SOLG need to exit Cascabel to appease CGP? Is it because they know they can't sell their stake without us selling ours? Maybe they should have thought about that when Nick made them a very generous offer to combine.
It's OK trying to follow the Irwin and CGP logic but you've got to admit that they're behavious has been bizarre throughout, yet the propaganda lays blame at the door of Nick Mather, and SolGold. Funny, that.
Dart, that simply isn't the case. Annoncements of this sort are as rare as hens teeth. In fact, I can't recall having seen one like it, let alone two.
It wasn't conjured out of thin air and was quite obviously the result of detailed and lenghty conversations and negotiations. The inclusion of the wording 'strategic options' is the first time the company has ever made reference to such a possibility and it's inclusion was deluberate and is of huge significance...as we will discover in due course.
This was most definitely not a routine announcement.
Dart , CGP / Irwin have always made it clear they want Cascabel sold , recently Irwin said they wanted to see this in the near term……. Now they are happy with direction of the company…. You believe this is because we are going to production and they are going to have to stump up hundreds of millions ….. really ?
Spot on, Frog.
Sorry Addicknt, I agree with Bozi, I cannot see any big change of policy. It is good that Solgold and CGP have kissed and made up, but that is all it is. No more should be read into it.
Frog
Bozi, it was a million miles from being 'inconsequential'. I fact it represented the biggest change on strategy we've seen and I'm surprised you can't see this.
Mather removed and a publicly declated rapproachment between SOLG and CGP regarding Cascabel can hardly, with the best will in the world, be described as 'business as usual'. There's movement behind the scenes though what those movements are is anyone's guess. I have no doubt those movements when they materialise will be materially beneficial. If they're not I for one will be 'well and truly fecked off'