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 just find this individual offensive along with Covgas.
Quady - I can tell you for a fact that after conversing directly with SharketMare away from here for some time, he is one of the most knowledgeable and well-meaning contributors to this board that you're going to find. So, please stop calling everyone you don't agree with thick or useless.
The issue with your argument is that there was much more nuance to it than you were giving it credit for. BHP themselves score quite respectably as far as the various benchmarks for ESG credentials go. That doesn't mean they don't have anything to gain by leveraging the social and environmental capital that SolGold has accrued in country.
People sometimes like to joke about the fish farms, the trees, the bakery and any little initiative that the company publicises. But they too lose track of the fact that we're investigating for minerals in a country fighting for it's financial life after decades of struggle.
SolGold haven't done things perfectly since day 1, but they have done a lot of things right. Where we haven't quite hit the mark, or authorities want something doing differently or to a higher standard, the company has clearly taken it away and worked on it.
All of this in the background is why it's important to not just look at commodity themes, the corporate backdrop or drill results. There's so, so much more going on at a company like this day to day and it's not just a case of setting our clocks for a value generating transaction, as nice as one of those would be.
We will all find out soon imho gla
As I said SharketMare you are becoming one of the most useless posters on here.
Are you denying that we had to change our ESG to meet the governments regulatory framework and other companies would also have too.
Looks like it's another tick war !
Quady, you don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid. I've asked several questions below and you are unable to answer any of them. As happens normally when you're called out and shown to be wrong, you attempt to move the conversation on to matters unrelated (because you're out of your depth).
There are three main frameworks that corporates such as BHP really care about. These are MSCI, Sustainalytics and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). They care about these three the most, because these are the three that investors and governments pay most attention to. One of the big problems that the sustainability industry faces (and the topic of ESG more broadly) is around consensus on which framework to use to measure companies' ESG performance.
It's quite simple to look at BHP's performance around two of these frameworks. Taking Sustainalytics first, of all of the diversified metals companies they have analysed across the world BHP ranks at 15th out of 166. If you look at their direct competitors - Anglo, Vale, Rio and Glencore, they rank 2nd, only pipped by Anglo American.
https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-rating/bhp-group-ltd/1008134900
Moving on to MSCI, BHP are ranked in the upper average band in the mining and metals index (61 companies analysed in total), 2% have AAA ratings, 8% have AA ratings and 16% (including BHP) have a rating of A. It's also worth noting - given the points you've been making, that BHP are considered ESG industry leaders around water stress.
https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/bhp-group-limited/IID000000002158721
You have stated and are standing my the statement that BHP would have to 'change 'ts ESG' in order to advance Alpala. If you can show where the Ecuadorian government has stated this, or shed some light on what framework they are using, I'm happy to retract what I've said on here.
But we both know you can't and won't, because you're talking out of your a*se.
Just as I thought it was getting civilised on here again :/
Sharket
Don’t bother ….. if you disagree with him , he’ll only respond with a tirade of ( often misspelled) insults.
Best left well alone .
So just to be clear - no evidence to suggest that BHP has to 'change its ESG' in order to advance Alpala?
You're making things up matey.
SharketMare this was discussed when we had problems getting our initial water license for Alpala.
We had to change our ESG before it was granted.
About a six month delay if I remember.
At about that time we has NM announce that no one can construct Alpala as quickly as Solgold.
"BHP has to change it's ESG in order to advance Alpala.
That means it's required to change it's ESG in all it's other Mines, otherwise our ESG cannot be used for licenses granted and those we wish to obtain."
Hi Quady, can you let me know what the above means? When you say change its ESG, which aspect of ESG are you referring to? Which framework and ratings agencies must they improve their scores with?
Where is the evidence that it has to change its ESG in order to advance Alpala? I don't think this has ever been stated by BHP, SOLG or the Ecuadorian government, but happy to be shown otherwise.
There's a very good reason for all these very slick video's. All will be revealed soon but imagine the new lady is very busy!
Bubble I made this point some time ago.
BHP has to change it's ESG in order to advance Alpala.
That means it's required to change it's ESG in all it's other Mines, otherwise our ESG cannot be used for licenses granted and those we wish to obtain.
Eich - agreed.
Only way get is aJVA.
Z
Quads, Bubbles &Monte,
This video helps Solgold in many ways, this is what ii look for and even more importantly is pension funds who have very strict rules
Solgold have done everything the right way as Bubbles said to make the company ripe for the future, whatever it may be
Atb
That's why I think bhp or someone else will buy solgold now that they are established in the country on very good relationships with many groups and the government can just hand it over to a big conglomerate once proven up
Monte it's absolutely what the share holders signed up to.
Solgold has communicated it's ESG at every stage, this has brought us thus far.
Fantastic for the community and the people, it felt like a unicef advert to be honest. I can see the benefits for all including the board, not so sure its what the small shareholders signed up for.
Excellent video, we will create 6-8 thousand jobs just in the cascabel project.
Anyone who thought this was a waste of money doesn't understand Solgold.
We are here for the long term.
DBW and all other Solgers. My interpretation and the evidence of this video is that Solgold are so integrally entwined with improving the local situation /population , and of course with the government, that I cannot see a deal that will cleave this union. Solgold will be very much part of whatever deal is reached behind the scenes, I am sure of that!
Your thoughts?
Commendable, all part of the compelling SolGold investment package. GLA
DBW,
Good find
That’s a very good video, pleased they are doing all they said they would and more, very happy to be invested in Solgold however long it takes, Well done to the team there.
Atb
Feels like they are moving up to a whole new level with DC in charge, another great piece of media and slowly building a strong corporate responsibility image and really going for the hearts and minds which will distinguish this company from the wannabe's. Of course we'd all like the price to be far higher than where we are now however nothing out of line with all our other peers as posted last week. Just a bit more patience needed.
ONWARDS & UPWARDS
Seanhunter, the last funding round of $100m and $40m didn't sting did it? Mather made sure it didn't as his interest are aligned with the common pi. I think you might be surprised this time around, I think boliden or those types are in the frame and that's not going to please BHP but like I said... it's up to BHP... if they offer to fund the $100m+ but at 45p (like they did last time Sean) then I think most would happy.... well those that are invested. SP could move up fast to 30p levels soon if market gets.a whiff that a cheap raise in mid 20's is not happening... bit like the price surge seen when blackrock and Norges were in a rush to add stock. You could get left behind Sean as it's obvious you've sold with a. view of buying back cheaper. Good luck with that. Risky move. FOMO rules here. And our time is coming.