We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Still don't understand why we would do this in our current position?
Or are you saying it should be valued more?
"It seems unlikely NM has simply gone mad and is rushing around buying everything in sight on a whim and I think we can assume the board regards these purchases as value enhancing."
It is interesting that after referring to NM you go on to say " the board regards these purchases as value enhancing." f posts on this board give the impression that NM is in charge. who is in charge NM or the Board.
The pea for example will be based on 300 odd pages of not more...
We know the high lights but the detail isn't normally released...
Same with the detailed geo.
You can buy these details databases from companies that are close to going under...
Not much but you might pay 15m for the pea it's resale might be 100k....as an intangible asset. But it increases the value of the tangible asset as well by increasing its discounted npv. I have know companies buy these before. Normally old ones or for license areas next door as a basis.
If you take the PFS then information of transport ing the resource, eis, power requiremen
It's really the only place you can put these intangible assets imo...
As always happy for folks to show examples of other companies do it different..
I am not an accountant it's just what's I've noticed..
When you say if we lost the resource we would still own these?
Not sure what you mean as who ever bought the resource would obviously know the details of the PEA ?
I’ve prob mis understood what you mean?
iceberg, thanks.
Just to add I've checked out a couple of other miners such as sav and they classify it as an purchase of intangible exploration asset. In the cashflow.
They buy the PEA JORC\resource estimate feasibility study even ALS results..
They are all counted as ,exploration and evaluation assets.
They are different to the resource itself..if we lost the resource we would still own these "assets' and could sell them on.
Afternoon all.....New Mining Tenements in Ecuador were put on hold in January 2018 as i remember correctly.
Pinot
:0)
Jerry, thanks for saving me the bother of writing.
You may have a point, iceberg, but the figures I'm referring to are as follows:
In the three months to 31 Sept '19, listed under "Investing Activities", is $21.2m described as "Acquisition of exploration and evaluation assets".
The figure for the same caption for three months to 31 Dec is $9.7m.
There was also an increase of $72m of Intangible Assets for the six month period ended 31 Dec.
What are those Intangibles? What is the definition of something listed as being an exploration and evaluation asset, particularly when it comes under the heading of "Investing Activities"? Surely, the drilling campaign is not described as an "Investment Activity", is it? To my way of thinking it should be fully expensed and written-off as an operating cost. If it leads to an increase in the asset base, this is where it would be classified as an increase. In other words, you spend the cash on exploration and expense the cost in the p&l and then increase the value of the tangible assets.
I'm certainly no expert in mining company accounts, but I'm not too useless at getting to grips with a "normal" set.
I suspect if I delved deeper, I may find the answer.
Afternoon addicknt. If you have nothing better to do, you could waste 15mins writing an email to Eliza pointing this out, but I am sure I could pen the response you would get:
Thanks for your email and your continued support for Solgold. I can confirm that we are fully compliant with the requirements of full disclosure and you will be able to find all references to our assets on our website.
I would prefer it if she just told the truth:
Thank you for not selling any Solgold shares while we continue to keep you in the dark about our cunning plans. Once we have finalised these and done so in such a fashion that you wont be able to do anything about it, we will tell you. These plans are neither imminent nor soon. In fact I havent a clue when they will be issued as I (and Anna) have been kept completely out of the loop. If it wasnt for the mortgage I would have gone long ago too.
Have a nice day!
Just trawling thru the accounts again..
We have 7m which the company has lent, to the staff to buy shares..this has to be repaid this year. Yet another reason why the shares need to be higher, as well as the share options. Plus money in the coffers. with the loan staff options and BHP options that's potentially quite a bit of money to come in.
Re required assets in the six months last year...I can't see much evidence of this in the accounts. We increased plant machinery and property by 4-5m...we saw a large increase in asset spending but I really think this was pfs and mre3 spending?
I might well be missing something and often do :)
Last year the company spent a significant amount of money acquiring new assets (not too many announcements were made about this). There was a hike in the last six months of the calendar year and it was these acquisitions that led to the necessity to raise money from BHP.
It seems unlikely NM has simply gone mad and is rushing around buying everything in sight on a whim and I think we can assume the board regards these purchases as value enhancing. If not, why take the company to the brink in terms of available cash? But why have we not received any real explanation/ singing from the rooftops? They've very much slipped in under the radar, but are obviously of great interest.
I'm afraid I simply don't get it.