Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. 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 believe at some point BHP move for Newcrest…
96p plus 59p dividend I'll settle for that
Sounds plausible and possibly better than mine, which is that Newcrest sell out to BHP and use the money to buy out GGP, following which BHP mope up Mather and Cornerstones and squeeze out we PI's.
Hi Sharket
So many possibilities/ connotations here. I’m fairly certain that Nick not under threat at the EGM but December ( if we get there ) could be a very different story. Norges ( usually risk averse) been building a stake here … as you say a quiet Irwin = a happy Irwin
I think the sale of Ensa makes sense on many fronts and it’s all playing out over the next few months
SM, unsurprisingly, I agree, although I'm feeling a bit more optimistic on the valuation, particularly after the recent Tandy news.
Interesting that the solgold tweet is solgold and cornerstone together.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part - but below I will outline what I'm hoping will play out over the coming weeks.
SOLG agrees to sell its 85% share of ENSA to a 'NewCo' entirely owned by BHP and NCM (aware that these two technically own some of that 85%, but hear me out). NewCo also purchases Cornerstone's share of ENSA. SOLG receives cash for the disposal of its core asset, resulting in a substantial re-rerate in share price. I will not speculate on what that deal might look like, though I imagine it will disappoint the £1+ crew (sorry).
This:
1) explains why Cornerstone have been so quiet and seemingly content (we know when they are not content, they kick up a fuss)
2) allows for Darryl's 'next cab off the rank' prophecy to remain true - Alpala is sold off, SOLG retains Porvenir and the rest of its exploration portfolio, with the opportunity to rinse and repeat. You would hope that shareholders would receive a special dividend of sorts from the sale of Alpala, with cash retained in the coffers for what SOLG is best at - exploration
3) may allow Nick Mather, up for a reelection at the end of this year that he is almost certain to lose, to maintain his seat at the table as a NED (you would imagine this might be part of any negotiated deal for ENSA, as Nick's shares are going to be necessary to sway any vote)
4) allows for Nick's 'multiple exit points' for shareholders to remain true and is aligned with Darryl's new 'next cab off the rank language'
Nick's goose is cooked at the end of the year, and whilst that does not mean that he and his companies necessarily lose out on their shareholding, it does mean that his influence over decision making at SOLG is going to be heavily watered down. It also - in my opinion - increases the possibility of massive dilution on a scale that he personally would not be able to keep up with, thus weakening his influence further (and handing over the keys to the majors).
It might be a tough pill to swallow, but agreeing a deal for ENSA that allows him, his companies and us to all benefit in the short term, and allows him to retain some form of influence over the rest of SOLG's portfolio (remember, he thinks we're sitting on multiple Tier 1s) seems to be his best option at the moment.
Thoughts and feedback welcome - writing with a slightly sore head after yesterday's fun.
SM
Interesting stuff
Thanks Damers
Another solution is new technologies and recycling. Technologies that can help include, lithium iron phosphate batteries for EVs, nuclear power's contributions, and new production technologies.
Energy transition will not be cheap, but returns on mining investment also look very solid, with the BofA estimating an impressive +94-317%.
"The UN estimates the adaption costs at $140-300BN pa by 2030 in developing countries alone. Based on the mining CAPEX required to achieve Net Zero, although this may simplify it a bit, the return on that investment could be somewhere between +94-317%," the authors of the report said.
As things stand now, only 38% of carbon dioxide emission reductions could be achieved by 2030. "Looking at this from a different angle, and working various scenarios on the availability of the most constrained metals, i.e. copper, platinum, nickel and lithium, into our calculations, the world would have nearly 28Gt of residual CO2e unabated in 2050 in the most pessimistic scenario. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the emission trajectory would still be far off target, with a residual CO2e balance of 15Gt," the report stated.
Shortages of key metals will prevent countries from meeting net-zero emissions goals by 2050 as not enough focus is being paid to the current financing in the resource sector, according to Bank of America.
The net-zero emissions goals set to be achieved by no later than 2050 are in jeopardy because of the dearth of key 'metals important for future technologies' (MIFTs). And it all comes down to financing the mining projects for the energy transition.
"The world is only slowly waking up to this threat. And China being the biggest producer of many critical resources exacerbates supply risk for the Western world. The market focus often is mainstream copper and nickel, but we identify 27 MIFTs used in electric vehicles (EVs), renewables and energy storage," said Bank of America commodity strategists Michael Widmer and Francisco Blanch.
The 27 MIFTs identified by the BofA included lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, aluminum, iridium, molybdenum, copper, and more. Use cases listed were everything from powering electric vehicles, wind applications, and energy storage.
One solution to this is more investment. And that means at least doubling mining's capital expenditures.
"Based on the current resource endowment and market balances, we don't expect the 1.5°C global warming target to be achieved by 2050: 1.7-1.8°C looks likely. One solution to resolving shortages and constraints, as ever, lies in investment," Widmer and Blanch said. "To prevent metal shortages and achieve Net Zero, mining CAPEX needs to nearly double."
The mining industry needs to spend $81 billion annually to 2030, and that is just to avoid shortages to achieve net zero. "It is worth noting that this CAPEX requirement does not even include any demand growth from traditional consumers," the report said. "Operators are underspending massively, suggesting that CAPEX may need to almost double to $160 billion pa for the world to hit Net Zero by 2050."
cont.......
"Ecuador is laying the foundations for becoming a great mining country," former deputy mining minister Fernando Benalcázar told BNamericas. “President Guillermo Lasso realized that it is Ecuador's time and launched a vigorous campaign by having the ministers of the environment and energy and mines work together to get the projects done.”
https://www.bnamericas.com/en/analysis/ecuador-seen-on-track-to-become-a-major-mining-country
Sjn, great detective work.
Addicknt if you remember I said it would be something ordinary this was just a supposition.
Companys do call EGM's for all sorts of reasons.
Add ….. wasting your time
Even if/when it becomes apparent it was nothing to do with the new CFO ….. you’ll soon find out he was still right
And picking up on your typo ….. he should really be careful….. people in glass houses
Use the filter mate
Q, I take it you understand the difference between an EGM and an AGM? The clue's in the letter 'E'.
Second, I've never seen an EGM with the sole purpose of appointing a director, let alone a CFO.
I realized my gender mistake immediately, but thank you so much for correcting my appalling error.
The fact is Q, this has absolutely nothing to do with the CFOs appointment...no matter how much you wish it was.
A picture tells a thousand words
Z
https://cornerstoneresources.com/site/assets/files/5846/nr22-09figures.pdf
Z
Right guys chill and wait and see everyone has opinions on this EGM see you Monday
sjn1980, I am on about the Solgold holding, not CGP's shares.
So it is true.
This is not true Quady cause if Cornerstone sold all of the company or someone acquired all of cornerstones shares then Solgolds pre emption rights over ENSA wouldn’t apply.
Bubble based on what ?
Can't see anyone buying CGP's holding without buying their share of ENSA.
And their share of ENSA has to offered to Solgold first.
We are set up and defended in such a way that almost makes a bid impossible unless the book changes.
Yes I do think there's more drilling results pending this month imho ,anyone think news might be about cgp holding being bought by BHP and then an offer for solgold by BHP?
On 4th Jan it was announced that Peter Wright was allocated share options at a strike price of $0.12 per share.
There for the Directors who exercised their options before expiry as you mention could not allow them to expire and be replaced because their replacement strike price would be above $0.084.
This supports further your views re share price movement.
Resolution 4 - Ratification of the issue of Placement Shares, Placement Options and Fee Options
To consider and if thought fit, pass the following Ordinary Resolution:
“That in accordance with the provisions of Listing Rule 7.4 and for all other purposes, Shareholders ratify the previous issues pursuant to Listing Rule 7.1 of:
• 57,692,308 fully paid ordinary Shares at an issue price of $0.052 per Share; and
• 27,634,616 quoted Options at an exercise price of $0.12 per Option, each expiring on 25 September 2023,
to those recipients identified in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying this Notice of Meeting (the EM), and a further 6 000,000 quoted Options to Bizzell Capital Partners Pty Ltd at an exercise price of $0.12 per Option, each expiring on 25 September 2023, and in each case otherwise on the terms set out in the EM.”
Well done for pointing this out and thank you..
SJN
Thanks….. now that really is interesting
Nicely summarised addicknt, I like you think this has something to do with Cascabel and realising some value on this asset. The company is going to need funds to fully explore the other license blocks, so why not pause exploration of these assets, raise some funds from Cascabel, Spin the other license blocks off into a new listing ( hence the new CFO who has the experience ), then find more tier 1 assets which the company has stated a number of times, they believe they have. Some great thoughts from all though. C