Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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 indeed copper going to be in huge demand
Addicknt @10:23 - that's just about the crux of it.
The lie of the land as I see it is that it's PIs and the odd II like Berry St Capital who are baying for a sale/exit.
With CGP, this is the one reason that stirs my resentment of the merger. CGP held a minority 21% direct and indirect stake in Cascabel and yet now they have a big say in the future of SolGold. Those who want the same as them will be chuffed at the prospect I'm sure but for those of us that don't, it stinks to high heaven.
We've got a tier 1 copper gold porphyry deposit and everything is pointing to a huge copper supply deficit from 2028 onwards which will only grow. Yet people want to bail now.
It hasn't been the easiest hold, far from it, but if you're an investor that isn't looking to draw down and close their book in the next 6 months then it doesn't make any sense at all.
The right choice is to stay in the game, get a board of directors and management together that can stabilise the company and set it up for the next 10 years. I'd then be reviewing interest for Cascabel only and if someone wants to give us a free carry (unlikely) then look at that.
Investors who want out can take their leave and their loot and those who are invested for the copper story of the next 10 or 20 years can roll the dice at Porvenir and around Ecuador with SOLGs exploration blueprint.
Darryl Cuzzubbo, CEO and Managing Director of SolGold, stated: "It has been my view from the start that SolGold and Cornerstone are more valuable together than apart. This is an exciting value enhancing transaction for all stakeholders. This Transaction also sets the stage for a strategic review of the Combined Group as we methodically assess options that are in the best interest of our shareholders."
Brooke Macdonald, President and CEO of Cornerstone, stated: "This merger transaction makes sense for both sets of shareholders. The merger allows our shareholders to maintain exposure to the world class Cascabel Project and is a step towards maximizing value. Having considered the landscape, we are convinced that combining forces with SolGold will unlock significant value for all shareholders. The strategic review for the combined group aligns with our views on the best path forward. Today represents a significant milestone for all Cornerstone stakeholders and I would like to thank them for their support over the years."
The second last sentence from Brooke suggests that the review is known.
That's OK addicknt on that part I believe I am clearer as it makes sense to proceed with the DFS as these attributes mean a higher percentage value should any part or the whole be sold and is also necessary if we proceed to production.
Thank you for answering the parts I wasn't clear on.
All the best.
Q, sorry I didn't answer your question about funding.
As far as I can see there were no references to this is in the RNS, although that doesn't mean it hasn't been included in the terms of engagement.
Having said that, it's difficult to see how such an exercise could be of any practical use - for the simple reason that at the moment it's an undeliverable.
Thank you for the reply addicknt.
Q, that's a good question. The outcome is often a reflection of what shareholders and the market are demanding and this doesn't necessarily mean that it's best for the long term.
I consider our situation to be unusual, for the simple reason that I don't believe we can actually achieve what may be better in the long term - if that sounds a bit odd, it's because it is.
Obviously, you have a different view of life, which I respect.
Almondstone, the simple answer is, no they don't. However, if a board wishes to avoid a share price catastrophe, they'd be well advised to listen what's being said by the advisers. There are plenty of examples of companies saying; "we've run the exercise, but we consider the interests of the shareholders are best protected by the status quo". However, I do not believe this is an option here. Something has to change and it needs to do so asap. Bear in mind, this is a company with nearly half a billion market cap and yet we don't even have a full time CEO or CFO, and to say our board has been unstable of the past couple of years is a gross understatement.
Correct, the Strategic Review is more a process of ticking governance boxes. But is the strategic review also a process of working out the best way to dice up the SOLG cake to get best bang for buck?? No is the answer.
By simply concluding the best way to tale ENSA forwards is by seeking an asset sale that could involved the entire SOLG business is about as far as they will go at this stage.
By opening the doors to talks with potential buyers, they will soon know who wants what and whether some parties just want ENSA or others want SOLG lock stock and barrel. That's a sale discussion. There is no doubt that if you sell the lot then you'll lose all that folio exploration potential to someone else. So I reckon SOLG might announce a deal to sell ENSA (that might result in SOLG 100% sale etc) but also announce a sale of some of the regionals. I still think the only reason why Mather and CGP are getting along is because both have agreed what they want. And Mather might be getting a nice collection of licences to explore under a new company. Only trouble with this is that it borders on insider deals and that does not bode well for governance. I thought the maxit deal (sorry meant Osisko cough cough) was also a little close to the legal lines on insider deals. CGP and SOLG/Mather must be careful not to feather their own nests prior to sale or I think BHP and NCM might tie up them up in legals which could take years.
Going to be interesting to watch it unfold. I can't see anything below 50p flying so huge upside ahead for patient and (many) long enduring holders. 60p to 70p levels and it becomes more attractive to Norges, Blackrock et al. Eg.. Harder to defend.
Thank you addicknt.
The appointments are also designed to provide an objective view of possible outcomes which should remove the possibility of accusations that the board has not acted in the best interests of all shareholders.
Does the board then have to follow what the review suggests?
I would also assume the review would include short term/long term best interest’s for shareholders.
Eloro you convict yourself as being ignorant and arrogant by your own words.
Royalty and offtake agreements are always ring fenced for obvious reasons. The 0.6% and Franco Nevada's 1.27% can only be used for Alpala because they want a return for Alpala.
They are not allowed to use it for anything else and then say we don't have enough money for what you paid for.
They expect a return on their capital.
You could try understanding what these agreements are before sounding off and making a buffoon of yourself.
Here we go again! That rare specie of lesser spotted gobs-h-y-t-e, better known as Quadyus Productionus, is assigning intent to the recently announced $50m funding which I don't recall reading in the recent funding rns! Where was stated that the cash will be ring fenced?
Good morning addicknt, thank you for your description on the strategic review.
May I ask in your experience are strategic reviews done for the best short term outcome or the best long term outcome.
I ask this because the 0.6% royalty is ring fenced to take us to DFS and cannot be spent on anything else.
So is it possible that the strategic review will also look at funding options that open up to us at DFS.
Do you think they would look at that aspect as well.
Almostdone, the process is designed to provide a range of options and for the board and its advisors to decide which of them provides the best opportunity for value creation and shareholder return. It's not about what's in the ground - that work is ongoing and is a separate activity.
You suggest the board should already know this and of course they will have their own views. However, they will not have the same depth of knowledge of the potential buyer/partner environment, nor are they experts in capital markets...that's why advisors are appointed. The appointments are also designed to provide an objective view of possible outcomes which should remove the possibility of accusations that the board has not acted in the best interests of all shareholders.
Most people on here are of the opinion that a full sale of the company or disposal of Cascabel is the best route to pursue - others believe we should continue to plough our own furrow and move towards production. It's also the case that CGP/Irwin/Sangha all feel a sale is the best way to go and bear in mind our new interim CEO is a CGP appointee.
Strategic reviews are often a euphemism for finding a buyer, and most of us feel that's the case here. However, I would add this board has a track record of surprising us, so who knows what the outcome will be? Logic says one thing, but logic doesn't always prevail.
All the posters on here are clearly well clued up on technicals etc. but have different views and outcomes.
For myself I cannot understand why solg needs this review, is it for the board to know the best direction or to tell all and sundry what solg potentially have in the ground.
The board should by now know what is the best outcome and if it is feasible, and any prospective major should also know what is involved. So what will the review tell?
Sorry for being a bit dim if the answers are obvious.
Richbetter - muchbetter.
Z
RK. I used to own some GPM but I exited when I decided I didn’t like the way it was run and who it was associated with…but I have plenty of bullion and miners.
Redknight -you're so thin-skinned for a fella who has done a lot and been through a lot (from what you have said before).
You come at me telling me I'm talking rubbish for giving my opinion to another poster, before
1.) Making a statement that you can't verify and treating it as fact
2.) Completely misunderstanding a point I'd made on a separate thread and again jumping on me.
Instead of bringing the aggression and hiding behind the filter when all i suggested was you have a relaxing rest of your weekend, how about ask someone to explain their thinking?
It's clear to all that you hold yourself in high esteem but you need to stop treating me like I'm something you've trodden in because i won't accept that, and, before you say anything, this isn't the first time you've alluded to your own superiority. It's a horrible horrible look.
Redknight
A fella who worked for a major in senior positions for over half of his career doesn't just barricade his bridges and pulls in a completely different direction. At the very least, he was placeholding, ensuring SOLG didn't get above his station.
Ask yourself why his tenure lasted 11 months.
Ask yourself why he bought no stock.
Ask yourself why he suspended all regional drilling and never resumed it.
Ask yourself why we delayed raising finance until the time that markets hadd started to slide and we were competing with other juniors looking to get cashed up.
Impressions can be misleading. His CV clearly did a lot of heavy lifting and Nick Mather took it on trust that he was fully geared to pushing Solgold forwards. This after a prolonged recruitment process, that, for all we know, may have revolved around more than 1 candidate and more than 1 job offer.
Because it does matter would be my guess and Henry has been firing blanks for a while now
Jerry...its why I have 500,000 GPM and £70k of EQX...
Add, have you seen the cover story in MoneyWeek? Russia and China rumoured to be talking about gold backed currency. Usually only see these sort of stories in places like kitco.
If that were to happen Solgold might attract a very long queue of admirers. But I would still want out as the directors and management are the worst I have ever been invested in.
Exactly...a stake worth 0.04% of their MCap...pathetic...
And din't bother to reply...I'm fed up wth you anyhow.
Latest from Irwin in case anyone missed it last night
“BHP CEO Mike Henry said SolGold has come up with a "disappointing high-cost" finance option. Why does the CEO of the world's largest mining company bother to comment on the financing affairs of a junior resource company they own a tiny stake in??”
Filtered! I won't stand for that you ignorant dinosaur.