Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten has just been released. Listen 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.
You’re right, I can’t tell the difference between man made and natural co2, that’s because there isn’t a difference.
Natural amounts ebb and flow (hence 6x the amount 800,000 years ago) so the tiny tiny amount that is man made is utterly irrelevant
The planet is once again greening as nature adapts like it always does. Why don’t we encourage everybody to plant trees and shrubs instead of feeezing themselves to death or giving up their cars?
Why don’t we say no to a million immigrants per year and instead of digging up woodland and greenery to build more houses we plant trees instead?
You seem to be advocating depopulation? Lead the way old chap
A good debate on climate change: joe rogan candace owens debate climate
Also many up-to-date debates by George Monbiot .
Regarding solgold. Great presentation by Scott he is doing everything right. Someone will come forward sooner or later
Lots of greenlines copperpot. The key is to use the filter and then there is zero disruption.
FWIIW, I thought presentation was pretty good considering he was unable to say anything that would be market sensitive as that requires an RNS before hand. So not surprising to see him tip toeing a bit around some points. What can he say??? What can't he say??? Not easy when SOLG are clearly in discussions with multiple parties and all are on NDA's.
The key to this presentation was to get the message out there that one of the world's finest Tier 1 discoveries is in derisking mode and getting better with every derisking event that happens. I suspect the message that a smaller scale phased approach will please some out there that were previously not in the running due to teh capex of $3bln being out of their pocket depth. So get the phased approach to $1bln to $1.5bln range and you suddenly get a whole load more interested parties.
The Time schedule of 3.30pm GMT to Denver US time not ideal as that's breakfast territory. I think he was a bit miffed at that but sure he realised that it was the global audience watching (millions) that mattered most rather than those in the room!
I think he'll be delivering an exciting exploration plan for the regionals soon as without that... the AGM is going to feel like a spagetti western. He needs a rabbit out of the hat and I reckon he has a few he can pull out.
This is why Slug you remain the most unintelligent poster on this forum.
You cannot even understand the difference.
800,000 year's ago the planet was warmer but could absorb all the CO2 because we had plant life and oceans.
Also as plant life rotted this over time became a carbon sink.
Today we know them as fossil fuels.
So today the huge carbon sink is not here, so back in 1800 we had 280 parts per million.
But human activity today has grown it to over 400 parts per million.
You are a true idiot by trying to argue the percentage.
Even some of the true idiots understand that has nothing to do with the problem.
We cannot sink the excess CO2 because what we create doesn't get sunk the next day it takes hundreds of years.
So the fossil fuels took millions of years to create, we burn them in an instant and in order for the earth to turn them into fossil fuels again, the plants need to absorb them and die, get compressed over millions of years.
The man made difference is measurable month by month.
It's the excess that the planet cannot deal with.
Even the most unintelligent poster on here can surely get that.
Have you not read any of the peer reviewed studies on climate change.
Have you never understood the man made element.
Nobody can be that dense.
People on here quote the odd scientist as evidence against climate change.
But those individuals only criticise and never produce any scientific based evidence.
Show me just one peer reviewed study that says climate change is not happening so everyone can look at the evidence.
You cannot, because none exist.
Just go to the NOAA site, everything you should know is on there.
You convict yourself as being the most unintelligent poster on here.
Some good posts this morning.....then 1984 tries to cloud it by talking about CO2 levels again. We all know you're here to disrupt the board!....
Your obsession with Quady is comical ......................and childish.
Hilarious Quady!!!
The 97% of natural co2 is no problem whatsoever but the 0.03% of co2 man made in the U.K. can’t find a home. Are they somehow different?
Is man made co2 not co2? In which case should it be called something else?
I reiterate, when there was 6x the co2 in ancient times (including when man was not on the planet at all) the earth cooed just fine, in fact it was glacial
That is the smoking gun, it disproves the theory that extra carbon in the atmosphere leads to warming of the planet which is what the entire net zero hoax is based upon
"It's amazing all the good we are doing. I'm particularly proud of the chubby ladies' soccer team we are subsidising."
A bit like the Lionesses here at home.
The blockcave example he gave and that they are going to follow is based on the template that BHP are applying to OZ Minerals asset. So that certainly gets the mind going doesn't it? So they are following BHP's stratgey on blockcave mining now?? Mmm?
One thing Scott said that does need addressing is this constant reference to CGP shares but not as 100m shares, instead he refers to them in capital terms eg dollars. He said they have $28m worth of shares at hand unless I misheard??
It's not the first time he has referred to the CGP shares in dollar terms. So has he already got a preagreed buyer for them and that's how he arrives at his $28m? That's roughly 22p a share. 50% higher than today's price.
The reality of building a mine starts to hit home. The talk of millions of resources in gold and copper is replaced with boring details like Tailings, DAM, pipelines etc. But this is the reality. This is what decides whether Alpala gets built or not. And as you say Gino, SOLG are seeking to derisk those key elements. So the talk of using the old railyway line (or under it) for the pipeline is very interesting. The importance of the test drilling on the area for tailings/Dam is cruicial as far as I can see. Scott seemed to suggest that this site that they have identified is the ONLY site possible. These key questions are clearly being asked by interested parties / buyers and SOLG are gradually ticking off their request boxes. But end of the day... at somepoint SOLG has to hand over (monetise) the asset as we can't contiune to derisk the project forever. If buyers or partners want in, then they'll have to bear soem of the risk if they want a discounted deal. Equally... if SOLG want a fair price or premium then they really do have deliver guarantees on DAM sites and pipelines etc. It feels like slow progress but ironically testing the only site available for the DAM/Tailings should have been done long ago imho. Why wasn't it done Darryl?? I think shareholders should be seeking damages from him rather than the other way around!
Addicknt, just had a look at yesterday's presentation by Scott.
I was wondering if the Block Cave Consultants they have used for input might give us some indication who is REALLY INTERESTED in the Cascabel project. Anybody know who these consultants work for or have worked for?
Heavens knows where we are really heading. "To sell or not to sell, that is the question" - to steal a phrase from elsewhere!!!! But on the little cash we have, we cannot hang on for ever! $6mil just to hold the large number of tenements and they need drilling!!!
I believe when he says that, he is talking to the wider market… who he knows don’t for one second believe a tiny exploration company, with no experience of mining, and Solgolds proven track record of failing to do or deliver anything, even just the small things, on time, or on schedule, are capable of building a complex underground mine… certainly on time and on budget.. We are not… Now he is the one in charge, he sees and accepts, no one believes this ‘we can do it ourselves’ nonsense.
That bluff has long gone and we are left trying to monetise something without any timeline…. and after watching last evenings video, seemingly without any success.
Solgolds management seem to have identified they are hapless when it comes to meeting any schedules and timelines… so rather than improve the management, and get better, they have chosen to remove the schedules and timelines… and just continue..
The confusion remains. What does the 'we are not going to build this ourselves' actually mean?
1) We will have sold Cascabel?
2) The construction will be undertaken by a third party under our management?
3) A jv partner will take on responsibility?
I'm guessing SC understands how ambiguous this statement is, so why is he so happy to keep saying it?
Quady. we may not agree with slug, although some of what he says is worth thinking about.
but at least he appears to be truthful. no outlandish lies, no complete fantasy,
unlike yourself and others on here.
I personally would rather read his often controversial views. than the likes of yourself, with your self important im right your wrong truth stretching posts.
New Corporate Video Group Hug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S5uQ9Lh03Q
It's amazing all the good we are doing. I'm particularly proud of the chubby ladies' soccer team we are subsidising.
It was not cumalative 800,000 years ago because humans had not built cities and their wasn't 8 billion people on the planet.
The temperature was hotter, but the whole planet was a carbon sink as vegetation was rife and the oceans were not carbon saturated.
The man made proportion cannot be sinked today as CO2 remains in the atmosphere and increases every year because the planet cannot sink the man made element, because we produce more CO2 by burning the carbon sinks. Oil and gas meaning that at the rate of burn that the planet cannot reassorb them as it takes between 300 to 1000 years depending at what level the CO2 is in to he atmosphere.
Why not read the explanation on NOAA and NASA.
I suppose the world's scientific community is just lying.
This is why you are the most unintelligent poster on here.
You cannot even do basic math.
That is why CO2 has risen from 280 parts per million to over 400 today.
Because we cannot sink the human activity, because of the worlds population and the amount of combined carbon sinks we are releasing by burning fossil fuel.
It cannot be sinked anymore because the carbon sinks that are left are becoming saturated.
Just try reading the science and not to he rubbish posted by a few numpties.
Quady,
just remembering a few of your posts from the last couple of months.
your an expert in the oil and gas field
your an expert on climate change
your an expert on electric vehicles
your an expert on block caving
your an expert on joint ventures
your an expert on wind farms
your an expert on climate change
your a national chess champion
youve been involved in major financial deals
youve told us your well travelled and knowledgeable about tourist disruption, and told us that was the issue in Ecuador
you told Smickster youve worked as a technical analyst for decades
your an expert on heat pumps.
and much more, to much to mention.
its so reassuring to know we have someone with your knowledge we can turn to if we need advice on anything
Genuine question Quady….why does man made co2 cause global warming when ordinary co2 in quantities an order of magnitude higher causes global cooling?
Surely as a man who knows the great game of chess and can compute logic, you must realise you’ve been had?
It was cumulative 800,000 years ago too when there weren’t any range rovers, gas fires, private jets or smelters melting metals down
And it resulted in global cooling.
Correlation is not causation
The same feckwits think the drop in the pound this time last year was down to Luz truss even though every single currency in the world tanked against greenback on the feds 0.75% rate rise hours earlier
Put some rubbish in the minds of the gullible and they will parrot it. Rational thinkers are rare in society and closed down as a danger to the propaganda
Good morning adikt.
I need reassuring again mate.
A couple of months ago, I posted that nothing had changed under scotty ( as we affectionately to like to call him).
You immediately replied extolling his virtues and hysterically insisting, that much had changed.
You also added a list of his achievements.
I seem to have mislaid that list.
I wonder if you find a couple of minutes today, if you could repost that list to reassure me, as I'm weakening again.
I also noted, and have been comforted mate, with what's gone on in the last day or two, or should I say not gone on, it's reassuring to see you and one or two others have managed to find the positives.
This is why Slug is the most unintelligent poster on here.
He talks about 800,000 years ago when the whole planet was a carbon sink.
He doesn't understand how the man made part today is the part that is steadily growing as it takes 300-1000 year's to extract that part, so it's cumulative.
Looks like the fairies are building up.
Shall we get a thousand oompa loompas instead?
This was actually quite good to listen to… better than previous presentations, and also quite good to watch.. for those non verbal cues a person gives away when they talk…. They can show a confidence, or betray a person and show them uncomfortable when covering certain topics… and some of that was on display here.. He seemed to struggle to look out at the audience when he was covering certain points.. maybe uncomfortable at talking to a half empty room..
Lots of small details, hints, and suggestions etc that can confirm or contradict views people already hold here…
Scott kept repeatedly, more than was comfortable in my opinion, mentioning the mine is planned to start considerably smaller than originally planned.. that was hammered home again and again..
Just my opinion but the answer to the hosts end question, did not exactly scream confidence and advanced talks with interested parties are taking place… it seemed sheepish and almost embarrassed about the issue being raised and questioned, after all this time holding a strategic review and having no developments to point to..
I expect no news until next year regarding the IPA and final permits.. PFS update probably Q2
Today 18:49
Madpunter the human element of carbon is the important part
0.04% of the air is co2
3% of that is man made
1% of that is U.K. man made
So 1% of 3% of 0.04% and we think that makes any kind of difference at all?
Also we have had times in history where we had 2000ppm carbon which if the current thesis of increasing carbon leads to increasing global temperatures holds should have led to a scorched earth
Only problem there is we had Glacial conditions following much higher carbon not scorched earth
Another inconvenient truth of course is just how did we get 2000ppm some 5x what we have today over 800,000 years ago when we weren’t driving Chelsea tractors and flicking the central heating on?
Hmmmm indeed, looks like the emperor’s bare backside is showing lol
Sounds like it's being tailored to an interested party imho. The lower capex and phased approach is a 'chinese template' to mining lol!
CRCC-Tongguan style!
Surely all of these little pieces (tailings dam, pipeline land etc) make Cascabel more saleable.
Can't comment on the value of it, but any prospective purchaser would want as many boxes ticked as possible.