Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. 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.
Bozi, you make a very valid point, but it doesn't take into account the demands of CGP and institutional shareholders for a significant return from the realization of our main asset. I simply can't see them accepting something which fails to achieve that ambition.
You mean the 5 years of drilling that has discovered and defined Porvenir, Porvenireal?
The issue with SM's suggestion that I find is that cash rich companies are often undervalued. Major A buying our 85% in Cascabel for £1bn for example doesn't necessarily mean SOLG goes to a £1bn+ valuation.
For those expecting a dividend you have to account for the company holding back significant funds to continue exploration at the high priority licence areas, of which there's at least a dozen. Many dividend payers will have a policy of between, and say 30-50% of profits. I'd expect SOLG to be right at the lower end of this given the capital intensity required for the rest of the portfolio.
Just things to bear in mind when wishing the company sells it's flagship asset.
That's a really good post. If the exploration portfolio is as amazing as they say, (and five years of eff all drilling might suggest otherwise, but) then that is by far the major prize long-term, and I very much do not want it to be the steak knives in a Cascabel deal. Sell Cascabel, spin out the exploreco and have dgr fund them.
As a dgr holder I am a little encouraged by this option buying. But as for why...might be great solg news incoming, or might not be that at all. They do have a big stake in ALL.L, which have announced they're assesing takeover bids. Could be that. Could be just that dgr is objectively very cheap, even at 30% above market.
I may have this wrong but …,,
According to the May presentation Black Rock held 4.88%
According to this
https://m.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/SOLGOLD-PLC-4005870/company/
They are now down to 4% …… ?
Saw this on twitter from Michael Kao, who I would recommend following. Could have been written for Solg
"3 questions I ask myself for any idiosyncratic investment right now:
1. WHY is it undervalued and WHY am I so lucky to have uncovered it?
2. HOW is the company financing itself and what happens if it can't raise $?
3. WHAT is the catalyst for value realization?"
How much warning was there re Noront
OTC yes agree with you there
Have to be honest I have also reduced my expectations on the future SP.
I would be more than happy with an exit at 60p as we currently have no clear way of valuing SOLG. The Assets we hold are huge, as is the risk to execute and realise this value.
Adding into this the world clearly has a shortage and need for copper vs the risk impact of a short/medium term global slowdown/recession.
I genuinely struggle to see how this can be above 60p for the big payday. I guess the hope is a bidding war, however we have seen no news/on snippets of this materialising.
Thats a really well thought through contribution SM...
Just one observation...why would DGRs guys be exercising their options at above the market price if its not in anticipation of a bid for SOLG...
Your proposal monetises Cascabel for SOLG and CGP but does nothing for shareholders except increase the SP...
Unless the DGR guys are planning to sell in the market after an uplift triggered by DGR's SOLG stake...
Well done...
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.