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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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'm sorry but thats hard to read based on your comments at the start fo this pandemic, you terrified people until you got your cheap buy in, then overnight your views flipped.
You are beyond help. If you are now backing a sale... then the last person you wanted voted out is NM. Unless of course your view is that you are happy with a cheap sale?
Then again, my guess is that based on you voting Nick out, the result would be a NO SALE scenario. With Nick gone, BHP and NCM would simply put their guys on the board and then dilute the mother load out of your holding reducing your stake and equity upside to near nothing. They would probably do this over a period of several years, sink the company under debt and then buy it all off the administrators SXX style. That's your BHP, NCM in charge outcome. Sad that you can't see it. But then some investors these days struggle with grasping the bigger picture mainly due to their desire to get rich quick and trade in and out of stocks on a weekly basis. Fickle is an understatement.
Ultimately, votes matter. But the real truth behind the AGM vote is that there were just 3 main entities involved with trying to get NM out. Even if you said they had several spokesman representing them, the sentiment still comes down to 3 companies as such. They cary more weight through the sizable pockets mainly achieved by squeezing the little guy out. Whereas, Nick got millions more individual votes. Literally million and millions. These were individual people. Individual minds. Not one large entity. And they all voted for Nick. Well majority did.
When it comes to the 'herd' the herd voted for Nick. When it comes to a few larger holders with intent to destroy the little shareholder through dilution, well... they lost. And that was a terrific result for small holders.
You do with what you want wit your SOLG shares. But imho... you're not a shareholder any more. You're not interested in the companies progress any more. You just want a sale at any price. And you think Nick should listen to investor like you? Here today, gone tomorrow? Of course not. And for the record... I don't think Nick has any intention of going into production. But if he wants top dollar ona sale or jv, then he has to put everything in place that suggests that it's a distinct possibility. It's called 'strategic planning'. You always want to have options. Lots of options. If you don't... then the likes of BHP and co will take you out cheap.
I’ll second that Pads
The ONLY way us small pi’s will get anywhere near true value from our investment in Solg is with NM at the helm and those like Jerry who would vote against him are putting their faith in BHP & NCM that they will simply take the reigns and give the little boys fair value - it’s NEVER going to happen! They would have their “new board” issue ever increasing equity raisings whilst at the same time trying to keep the SP suppressed so the placings are cheap as chips for them. End result is death by a thousand cuts for pi’s as they slowly squeeze us out and takeover Solg for a song! I know which side my bread is buttered and it’s certainly not with the likes of BHP or Newcrest!
DartFrog, it is vanishingly rare for a CEO of any plc to have this number of shares waged against him and in no way can this be seen a vote of confidence.
However, he won and, for the time being, that is the end of it. He must now make more effort with regard to the small shareholders who kept in him in his job. And make no mistake, that's what we did. He survived by the skin of his teeth and he should be eternally grateful and stop treating us like mushrooms. It will be a mark of his character as to how he responds to this situation and I for one want him to re-establish good relations with the main shareholders. Failure to do so will eventually lead to his demise.
Spot on summary Skint.
This “massive rebuke” by shareholders is actually Cornerstone/Newcrest/BHP.
They are not interested in the likes of us small PI’s.
NM at the helm is best for us.
NM always uses phrases like “best interests of ALL shareholders” (my emphasis).
The voting looks to me like 3 shareholders, albeit with large holdings don’t like his tactics (which i will paraphrase as “lots more money in a bid - if we wait a while yet”. I believe the big 3 voted more in line with what their individual Companies shareholders would want - and NOT what would be best for them as SOLG shareholders.
An attempt to steal SOLG on the cheap. Recognising that NM is the figurehead preventing such - they tried to get rid of him.
I don’t think this now means we are heading for production - but if no suitable bid emerges along that road (unlikely......IMHO) - then we might end up there.
SOLG do need to reward loyalty now with vastly improved communication, regular drill updates and ........... FFS stop missing deadlines.
Saturday musings all IMHO
It was not a vote of confidence, he very nearly lost, but this doesn't mean he is doing something wrong in that CGP, NCM and BHP wanted to take over to get us on the cheap.
PI's got him through, none of us know how this will go from here but for now he is in charge and will no doubt continue with his plans unless/until someone offers us a decent amount to have it.
I agree that it is a win stopping them form getting us cheap and means for now they are able to make a decent bid can't get control, for now, on the cheap.
If they want us they can buy us, but not though the back door, which is a success.
Only thought for today. Since peeps are harping on about the margin of the vote still, well, I’ve had to put up with us leaving the EU on the back of a 4% margin so NMs 10% is to my eyes a win by a country mile. I’m happy for him to royally pi55 off the losing side by doing right by all shareholders whenever he feels the need. There. Said it.
Morning CD. Besides the fact they are my shares and I can do what I like...
The other point is that I backed NM cos I thought it was a battle between him and CGP and he is marginally less odious. Now I know that the battle is between production and sale, I am backing sale. Ok?
I might point out that as a shareholder in DGR, which owns approx 9.8% of SOLG, I was not asked for my opinion as to whether he, Mather, should be retained as CEO. Mather, who is also the CEO of DGR, used my interest in DGR to reinforce the vote for himself. Just presumed that he had the right to do so. I would suggest that possibly a reasonable amount of DGR shareholders might not have wanted their voting capacity in SOLG to go that way. DGR has been repeatedly held down by our BOD, most of whom are BOD in SOLG, to to seriously feather their own nests. Mather owns less that 20% of DGR but used 100% to help him in the recent vote to retain his power. Say 30% would vote against Mather's continuance as SOLG CEO, and the voting might have proven even closer that the 45/55 result to retain him. Just a thought!
It’s been an interesting few weeks culminating in the AGM. I for one was surprised BHP have gone hostile as early as this and perhaps in retrospect they also will now see this as a mistake. I guess however the warning signs were there with the small Chinese investment (a warning shot by NM) and especially the PFS delay.
Given the current position but perhaps also for some time, the best defence against hostile take-over has been no PFS. To answer Quady’s question, why no bids from the majors, it’s very difficult for a major to justify spending one to two billion to their own shareholders without the PFS.
So what now? As I see it NM has bought himself 3-12 months in which he needs to deliver some excellent assay results and a couple more tier 1 PEA’s. If he can deliver this share value will rise (and every penny delivered could be 2p to any prospective hostile bidder). The Alpala PFS and finance plan can then be released. We get to that point we should be safe in terms of at least securing a reasonable price for the company, be in a strong negotiating position to deliver favourable joint ventures and/or have given confidence to enough shareholders that the current board can take at least some of these discoveries to production. Until that point all PI’s should be on the same side - and I think last Thursday’s vote actually showed we are .... for the moment.
There has been a lot of tosh written on here over the last couple of days saying that NM effectively lost what was effectively a vote of confidence and that he should stand down. Some of those saying this claim from their own knowledge and experience that no CEO winning a vote by a margin of 10% can stay in post.
The result was actually resoundingly in his favour. Those voting against were primarily the three parties who want Solgold on the cheap. The majority made up of a large chunk of PIs supported NM, but now there are a few who want him to go and for Solgold to be sold on the cheap. Shame on you! If that's what you want, you should have voted with NCM, BHP and CGP.
I am disappointed with BHP, I am a shareholder. If they had stayed on side with NM they might well have finished up with a JV with SOLG on one or more of the projects.
I do, however, feel that SOLG should learn from this. Cornerstone has been very articulate to the press and I really do think that Solgold should do the same. In other words, get our name out there and the project we have and get people to buy our shares, and our dream of building a series of mines in Ecuador and wealth to the people of that country and ourselves.
Thursday was a great example of the power of the small shareholders. Well done for showing that we are important and that we do count.
Have a good weekend.
Thanks Schlemiel, from this article I have just worked out that from Alpala alone we are predicted at todays prices to produce over £1bn worth of metal per year for the first 25 years of the mine and the overall life is 55 years.
No wonder BHP, NCM and co wanted this on the cheap.
Schlemeil,many thanks for link my friend good read
'will not constrain the debt capacity of the project. Debt financed construction for Alpala
Over the last year in Toronto, SolGold’s shares have traded in a range of 19¢ and 72¢ per share and at presstime in Toronto were changing hands for 66¢.
The junior has about 2.1 billion common shares outstanding for a market cap of about $1.4 billion.
For its part, Franco-Nevada said it was delighted to participate in the Cascabel project, and president and CEO Paul Brink described Alpala as “an exceptional orebody and one of the most attractive block cave development projects globally.”
SolGold updated the resource estimate for Alpala in April, outlining measured and indicated resources of 2.66 billion tonnes at a copper-equivalent grade of 0.53% and another 544 million inferred tonnes grading 0.31% copper-equivalent. The deposit remains open at depth to the north and northwest.
It certainly hasn’t been clear sailing, however. On Dec. 1, SolGold announced it would not be able to complete a prefeasibility study as planned in 2020. Apart from delays caused by the global pandemic, the company explained that new geotechnical information has necessitated a redesign of certain underground infrastructure to a location outside of the cave footprint and also said it was introducing changes to the mine design and development and mining production schedules.
As part of its optimization work, the team is also investigating improvements to metallurgy; seismicity studies to refine design of the tailings dam and processing plant sites; and sustainability improvements, including the option for hydroelectric power supply.
The deposit, 180 km north of Ecuador’s capital of Quito, lies in the northern section of the Andean copper belt, known for producing nearly half of the world’s copper.
According to the company, Alpala has produced some of the greatest drill hole intercepts in porphyry copper-gold exploration history, such as hole 12, which returned 1,560 metres grading 0.59% copper and 0.54 gram gold per tonne, including 1,044 metres grading 0.74% copper and 0.54 gram gold per tonne.
Once developed, Alpala will produce an average of 150,000 tonnes of copper, 245,000 oz. gold and 913,000 oz. silver in concentrate per year over 55 years. During the first 25 years of mining, average annual production is forecast to be 207,000 tonnes of copper, 438,000 ounces of gold and 1.4 million oz. of silver.
As for the AGM, “it was really just Nick the vote was against,” the analyst said, “and there weren’t enough votes to get him out. Nick’s a successful and self-assured guy and has some great successes and some people don’t like him for that.”
“The big companies don’t like royalties because they take value away at a project level,” said one mining analyst who covers the company who requested anonymity. “But SolGold’s argument is they’re trying to maximize SolGold’s shareholder value and it’s very dilutive to give equity. The royalty deal preserves the equity component for equity holders and they haven’t realized the full value yet for the project … and Franco-Nevada are going to be partners and that’s not necessarily a bad outcome.”
“I’m never a huge fan of royalties but sometimes you don’t have a choice,” he continued. “Cascabel is a huge project and if their equity price had been higher or someone would offer them a higher price they would have taken it.”
What’s more, SolGold has made big strides on the exploration front in Ecuador in the last twelve months, the analyst said. In addition to the Alpala deposit at the Cascabel project, SolGold is exploring and assessing 75 regional concessions across 14 provinces in the South American country. Recently the company has released solid assays for its Cacharposa copper-gold porphyry discovery at its Porvenir project in southern Ecuador and at the Tandayaa-America porphyry copper-gold target on the Cascabel concessions.
“They’re doing great, they’re finding new porphyries and that’s part of Nick’s vision and the team he’s assembled and that value hasn’t been realized yet and you can see where he’s going with it and that’s not part of any royalty agreement. An equity raise would have diluted that stuff as well.”
Calls for the board’s replacement came shortly after Cornerstone rejected SolGold’s second hostile takeover bid. (SolGold launched its first disclosed all-share bid for Cornerstone in March 2019 and a second on June 30 2020. The second bid valued Cornerstone at about $140 million (US$102 million).)
Under SolGold’s financing package with Franco-Nevada revealed on May 11, the first US$100 million in funding gives Franco-Nevada a perpetual 1% net smelter return royalty (NSR). The agreement can be upsized by US$50 million to a 1.5% NSR within eight months of the agreement. In addition, SolGold and Franco-Nevada signed a US$15 million secured bridge loan at a 12% interest rate for a four-month period with an option to extend the maturity for another four months.
Ingo Hofmaier, SolGold’s executive general manager of corporate finance, noted in a press release announcing the royalty deal that the company had “received and considered a broad range of funding options and the decision to proceed with Franco-Nevada is based on various factors, including the size of investment, the permanent nature of this financing, Franco-Nevada’s experience and understanding of Latin America and the competitive cost of capital.”
Hofmaier also noted that in SolGold’s opinion, a 1-1.5% NSR “will not constrain the debt capacity of the project; on the contrary, we believe this financing increases the confidence in SolGold’s ability to fund the development, further affirming the overall quality of the Alpala deposit.”
SolGold said the funds would be used to complete a feasibility study and any surplus would be used for SolGold’s share of the development of Alpala, pursuant to agreements with Cornerstone Capital.
By: Trish Saywell December 18, 2020
Two years ago The Northern Miner named Nick Mather, president and CEO of Australian junior SolGold (TSX: SOLG; LSE: SOLG), as its Mining Man of the Year for his role as the driving force behind the world-class Alpala gold-copper deposit at its Cascabel project in Imbabura province in northern Ecuador. The company has attracted major companies as shareholders, including BHP (NYSE: BHP; LSE: BHP) with a 13.57% stake and Newcrest Mining (TSX: NCM; AS: NCM) with 13.49%.
But delays at the project this year and Mather’s decision in May to raise money through a US$150 million royalty and streaming agreement with Franco-Nevada (TSX: FNV; NYSE: FNV) elicited criticism from some of the company’s shareholders.
That displeasure was voiced at SolGold’s annual general meeting on Dec. 17, when 44.75% of the company’s shareholders voted against Mather’s reappointment to the board of directors.
Mather, who according to the company’s most recent corporate presentation owns about 4.37% of SolGold, could not be reached for comment.
In mid-July, Cornerstone Capital Resources (TSXV: CGP), said it wanted to replace SolGold’s entire board of directors. Cornerstone owns 7.54% of SolGold and has a 15% interest in ENSA, the Ecuadorian company that holds 100% of the Cascabel concession. SolGold owns the remaining 85%.
“As one of the largest shareholders of SolGold, it is obvious to Cornerstone that the current SolGold board is incapable of managing the affairs of SolGold for the benefit of all shareholders in a prudent and transparent manner,” Cornerstone’s chairman, Greg Chamandy, outlined in a press release. “Additionally, it is our view that the proposed Franco-Nevada royalty financing will significantly destroy shareholder value for all SolGold shareholders.”
Indeed buddy. Filtered.
Admin needs to do something about this nuisance every weekend!!
Hey up Grim,
Yeah not too shabby mate..........
Bloody nose part two deployed to those who'd try n steal SOLG
Hope you and the grimmlets are safe n well matey ;o]
What's your take on things?
Nobody stands with Mr/Mrs filtered
See my message 22:50 - Let’s hope for a good RNS next week.........
Time to get some sleep now.
Have a good weekend