REMINDER: Our user survey closes TODAY, please submit your responses 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.
My apologies DM
While the Cost engineering was done to the requirtemnts of a US organisation below, it appears that all the engineering work was done by Australians...now why would you do that...?
"The capital cost estimate meets the requirements for a pre-feasibility study consistent with the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering ("AACE International") cost estimating guidelines for a Class 4 estimate. "
AACE is a non-profit organization with about 15 employees at its headquarters in Morgantown, WV.
Experts:
Mineral Resource Estimate Cecilia Artica, BSc MSc RMSME (formerly) Mining Plus
Mineral Reserve Estimate Aaron Spong, BEng FAusIMM CP (Min) Mining Plus
Environment, Social, Tailings & Water Tim Rowles, BSc MSc FAusIMM CP RPEQ Knight Piésold Pty Ltd
Metallurgy Peter Gron, BSc FAusIMM Wood plc
Process Plant & Infrastructure Steve Klose, BEng MSc FAusIMM Wood plc
Seanhunter that's what the PFS is about. We await the strategic review.
Seanhunter thats
Sketch the scenario for me to help me see how this would result in that first tonne of ore in that truck. I know we have cash but I'm genuinely curious
Seanhunter why not look at the financial information on Cascabel.
We could have this built and paid for on loans alone and the loans all paid off in six years our costs are really low, compared to what we have.
Quady when you announce to shareholders that you are committing to a vast amount of spending with money you do not have, without a partner to shoulder the costs, they will run for the hills - because the best case scenario will be that value will be created many, many years down the line.
That's fine for you if you are prepared to wait 15 years to get back into the 40s and above, but for most of us it will be the last straw and we will sell up. The price will crash (regardless of the value of the asset, which might as well be located on the moon if we can't exploit it). Look how easy it is to fall, and how hard it is to climb again.
Then we will enter a financing death spiral - the SP way too low to effectively dilute anymore. Jeez our last placing at 16p confirms we are already in one. BHP paid 45p!
There will come a point where the SP is so low that printing more shares is pointless. The company could go private at that point, or it could simply run out of money with no means to raise more.
A mine is nothing but cost, cost, cost into the foreseeable future. I asked you when we would get the first tonne of ore into a lorry and you can't tell me - you, of all people, who so badly want a mine.
I can tell you that a bid is possible, and I can tell you roughly how it would pan out.
I'm told that a mine is possible but absolutely no one can tell me how it would even begin to become a reality, least of all not Caldwell.
This situation isn't a shock to me - I knew from the merger that we were in a race between a sale and catastrophe.
I remain very optimistic, and the trading is very good right now, but I think all this "all dressed up with no place to go" is wearing people down month after month and now what was once patent nonsense - that we will build our own mine - is starting to appeal to those who are desperately tired and willing to grab at straws.
I was willing to look at the case for a mine but no one can give me one - or sketch even the scenario - that doesn't involve debt, dilution, loss of control, or bankruptcy.
Seanhunter you are not thinking, why would the share price drop if we started construction.
Have you any idea on funding for large scale projects.
Look people fund on 10-25 year payback cycle's.
Ours is 3.3 year's and that's on our current project estimation.
If we can construct an open cut cheaper, the share price will fly on the news.
Opened up almost 3% at 16.90 before settling back...steady as she goes and a tight spread...
Wouldn't take much (non ALGO) buying volume to get this going through 17p again IMO.
No...not ramping...just observation...
And BTW a reminder to the idiots...you're all filtered, so you're shouting into a vacuum... ;-)
"Our system’s recommendation today is to BUY. The BULLISH ENGULFING pattern finally received a confirmation because the prices crossed above the confirmation level which was at 16.12, and our valid average buying price stands now at 16.25. We may be at a market bottom or at the start of a reaction rally. "
Hi DM
First apologies because I have many posters filtered so I may not have picked up the nuances.
As to your question, the answer is yes, Scott is looking at cost factors that the previous PFIs ignired by looking at North American engineers rather than the cheapest (and possibly the best) in the world, i.e. the Chinese...
(And of course it may produce compelling evidence for the likes of Jiangxi to pursue a deal harder...)
I wonder what the Minister for Mining makes of all this? He must be as confused as we are.
That's probably exactly what he would have said if we didn't need a smokescreen around the fact that we are sitting waiting for a bid or perhaps in talks.
Of course large holders and long termers want the FULL value from Cascabel but we blew that over many years and we are where we are.
If we did announce we were starting a mine, the SP would drop to 2p -4p but the trading opportunities in that range would be enormous until we bankrupted ourselves but that wouldn't be much reward for the faithful. Yet a sale now at 32p won't be much reward for the faithful. But that's what dilution does, it's what u certainty anfd drift does, it's what alienating those who could have helped us does.
Anyone else out there have the foggiest idea how we could start mining without financial ruin?
"it is important to be crystal clear here. Solgold have made a great discovery in Alpala and cascabel, but we are not and will never be in a position to mine these concessions. It is therefore important to us as an explored and an active party within the local community that we find a suitable company capable of continuing our great work to take construction forward in the interests of all Ecuadorians. This will be our focus in the coming months, as we also seek to streamline our operations to increase efficiency in our discovery and development model".
Something like that, maybe.
That was certainly my interpretation - what is more meaningless than saying you are considering ALL options?
Fully agree on that last point.
I've long believed the choice of words was just too cluncky to be straightforward. It sounds like something Johnson would say about a lockdown party: extremely carefully chosen and too catchy to be natural. What phrase would you have chosen to tell the world that your company definitely were not going to be involved in the construction of a mine on your concession? I think I'd say something like that.
AgArCu, I agree that virtually everything he said was ambiguous, but, given the context, that quote was one of the less opaque comments.
It's funny how no one thought of this new interpretation until this morning (at least I haven't seen it). It strikes me as being somewhat contrived in order to suit an argument and doesn't wash for me.
Actually, I've reached the point where I don't much care which route we go down - I just want clarity so that I can decide what I want to do with my holding.
Sean, let's keep it civil, as you say.
I think waiting for the strategic review the company have repeatedly told the world they are working on is sensible. Initially it probably was a tactic to distract from the share price collapse, but they say they're undertaking a review and have outlined what it will cover. No doubt SC is probably trying to shift the company in the meantime, but the absence of any buyer (evidence: no bid) means we have to do something, and we are not drilling... So that leaves the review.
You are, of course, within your rights to wait until it is released to accept it is happening. Most here are content to wait a very long time for events to unfold.
DM, when you take into account the government requirements, another royalty deal is a complete no-no. We're already committed to giving away too much of our top line. Add to that the fact that debt would be ruinously expensive and you'll see why funding of any description looks highly unlikely.
Seanhunter of course it can't be done in an afternoon. Do you know what a strategic review would encompass.
It looks at many options.
We may be talking about altering mine design that later allows for the full block cave operation later on down the line.
Remember that the build will be completed in about fifty years time.
Because as we extract we continue to develop what is easily accessible and profitable as we go.
Don't get hung up on the cost.
We have an idea on pay back period and IRR.
So these are distractions only.
Plus - "It will be in the Strategic review" is no kind of answer.
I think a bid, a JV, the money running out, or the licences expiring are ALL more likely to happen before we see a "Strategic Review". It's basically a term for kicking things into the long grass. We don't need any kind of drawn out review - the decisions are fundamental and simple and would be made by a strong management team in an afternoon.
Personally I think a mine is a suicide mission and for the company talk of it is all part of a smokescreen. If it's not a smokescreen, maybe it's a threat - buy us now or we will run ourselves into the ground, bankrupt the company, the licences will be lost and there will be many years of chaos before anyone gets this resource packaged up as neatly as we have it.
I hope I'm wrong - but what is the path to building a mine that starts bringing in income?
Seanhunter I am honest so yes their is some vagueness as there should be on all discussed here.
The we will be bought argument has no vagueness but has been repeated for over ten years.
What do you want.
Propaganda or proper discussion.
I favour proper discussion.
DM...in the public domain are the following facts...
1 We have enough cash (including the CGP SOLG shares) to last until 'at least' June 2024 without a fundraise and even then, we have headroom in Royalty Financing.
2 Scott is working on much cheaper costings for the mine, using for example Chinese engineers and different approaches...only a matter of time before this emerges...
Given that you are the main supporter of the idea of going into production on here Quady, with all due respect your vagueness on this issue is alarming. I am 100% against the idea but I at least thought there was a "plan" which there clearly isn't.
A JV looks less likely to me than an outright bidder.
What about a royalty deal - surely that has to be the only option we actually have if we are serious? How would it work?
Addicknt it's not perverse.
If Cascabel was up for sale.
He would just say so.
It's completely wrong to believe this would all be done behind closed doors.
We would want the maximum amount of interest and that's how you would achieve it.
The problem we now have is we are at last running out of time.
Solgold have promised to start construction next year and the government has stated that construction at Cascabel will start next year.
So something has been agreed.
We just don't have the details.
Will the strategic review give us that level of detail.
Probably not, but I feel it will outline the pathway we will take.
That's the thing though, add: you're hearing it through your own bias, just as I am.
For me, he could have said "solg are not going to mine cascabel", or "solg are not going to be mine builders" but he didn't. "solg are mine finders, not mine builders". Well, that's true right up until they build their first mine. The phrase was so clearly a laboured sound bite, and he proved this by going on to say it a second time, reading the words off his script. Why not something less ambiguous? Why such contrived syntax?