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.
“Three mining companies that operate in Ecuador will require installed capacity of around 1,000MW of power when they start production and the country's electricity authorities are looking for ways to meet that demand.
The CEO of state power company Celec, Gonzalo Uquillas, told BNamericas that the energy will be required when the Warintza copper-molybdenum project, the Cascabel copper-gold project and the Cangrejos gold project start up.
The government expects Australian miner SolGold to break ground on its US$3bn Cascabel project next year, while construction of Canadian miner Lumina Gold's US$925mn Cangrejos project would start in 2025.
Warintza, meanwhile, is expected to move from initial exploration to the advanced stage in October, Ricardo Obando, country manager of operator Solaris Resources, said during the CGS 2023 copper and gold symposium in Quito.
The Celec chief executive added that a commercial agreement could be reached with Vancouver-based Solaris to develop an electricity generation project, financed by that company, to meet its needs.
The same model could be used with the other mining companies, he said.”
It's interesting that various Ecuadorians keep mentioning us breaking ground next year. It simply ain't gonna happen. Who gave them this impression and why, given the circumstances, do they persist with it?
Addicknt if I remember correctly doesn't the exploitation license have to be in place by January next year, as isn't that when our exploration licence we expires.
So either we start construction, a JV or it's sold by then.
Q, I think you're right. I would also assume the subject of ownership and ability to deliver are very much on the agenda of the discussions with officials. I'm equally certain those officials aren't dumb enough not to be fully aware of our situation.
Just found it.
On 3 January 2022 ENSA received approval for the two-year extension to the Economic Evaluation stage of the Cascabel license. This period shall expire on 3 January 2024 by which time the Company shall convert the current approval into the Exploitation Agreement with the State.
Its part of a RNS on 13th May 2022.
Quarterly Financial Report and MD&A
13 May 2022 07:00
RNS Number : 3668L
SolGold PLC
13 May 2022
13 May 2022
SolGold plc
("SolGold" or the "Company")
Quarterly Financial Report and MD&A
Thanks, Q. So what happens if we're not in a position to move to the exploitation phase?
As you say; something's got to happen this year.
I am unsure addicknt.
That's why I was recently asking if finance had to be in situ in order for an explotation license to be granted.
I think this is why Solgold is looking for an open cut to later convert to block cave for around the billion mark.
So that we can start construction.
After all we have less than six months.
I think the biggest problem here remains the geopolitical instability and obtaining investment protection/guarantees/licenses is paramount
“He also highlighted that Ecuador is a very rich country in copper like Chile and Peru, the two main world producers, and that it requires large investments that the State does not have to build the mines, such as Cascabel (5,000 million dollars) and Llurimagua (7,000 million dollars), both in the northern province of Imbabura.
The two consultations will be voted on Sunday August 20, coinciding with the extraordinary general elections. EFE”
https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/ecuador-petróleo_el-ministro-de-energía-de-ecuador-ve--un-suicidio--prohibir-explotación-petrolera-y-minera/48624506
This is where the Chinese hold the aces ….. the Ecuadorean government is already massively indebted to them.
I know in the oil and gas sector that the explotation license replaces the exploration licence and different rules apply.
Well there is the nightmare scenario where we get to January and the exploitation license has not arrived... our exploration license has expired with no decision to mine made... we are then in danger of losing the license... that's the apocalyptic result and back to 1-2p.
No major needs to bid for us now... they all know we only have the finances in place to stay mothballed for another 8-12 months.. then what? well they already know.... We get our begging bowl back out needing another raise? at what price then? after our total lack of progress has lowered the share price even more.
What will we have achieved by doing nothing, no exploration, just living off existing cash reserves until next spring summer? absolutely nothing but slowly reducing our cash..
Get some exploration done... even just a few holes somewhere. I didn't invest in a lifestyle company for the benefit of staff salaries and benefit packages.
What a great business plan.. don't explore any licenses, lets just shut everything down and hope someone will bid for us.
Orthern, do you imagine our directors are not aware of this?
The scenario you describe is precisely why the SR is taking place and is the reason something has to happen fairly sharpish.
Caldwell was holding his cards very tightly to his chest, but one things for sure, he isn't relying on internal 'engineering studies' to provide the solution.
Good afternoon Ortherncopper, I have maintained that the evidence favours production. If we can get the financing in place for a higher gold recovery at a cheaper rate, and a open cut to start with, which is one of the things being looked at in the strategic review. Then I believe we will obtain the explotation license.
Q, how does the 'evidence favour production' when the CEO keeps telling us we are not mine builders?
Afternoon Quady... A finance package is indeed an issue.. my understanding is most finance packages are based on the results of DFS studies... we sacked off ours... end the experts involved in creating them..
I am assuming any finance package in the current credit environment is going to bite...
Any future for Solg's involvement with Cascabel can only be as a junior partner with a major that does not need outside credit packages.
Correct addicknt he said we were not mine builder's, but in the same presentation that we would build with a JV.
Ortherncopper I believe you are correct.
But one of the main reasons we redid the PFS was to put it into a formal that could be imported into the DFS and would leave us with little to do.
Lastly maybe we could build a cheaper open cut without a DFS. If we could take offtake at a billion pounds worth.
After all no DFS was required for the Franco Nevada deal.
Sorry format not formal.
Q, I hope for all our sakes a jv doesn't happen - I fear you would be very disappointed.
Add a JV at best would provide a small spike in the share price and would be my cue for a quick exit ….. T/O is the only sensible outcome here ….. we are funded for at least a year with the ability to raise further without more dilution so we have plenty of time to put the right deal together. Not that I think we’ll need all that time.
FTJNY….. filter the tool
DBW, a while back I posted what a jv may look like and the implications for us - it was horrible.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Q has previously based his thinking on us maintaining a majority holding and being able to fund the whole thing with debt/royalty deals. My view is that this is wishful thinking at best.
Hi Add
Any JV would see us as a minority partner ….. we’d get screwed over and all potential takeout value would be decimated….. after an initial spike the share price would very much resemble CGP’s ….. we concur on this at least
Correct addicknt I do believe we would be the majority partner.
This would leave us free to explore the rest of our tenements with the cash generated.
Quash
DBW’s post makes absolutely no sense in respect of a JV.
If the licence is so valuable that a TO commands a premium then Solg can negotiate better terms for a JV.
I suspect DBW needs a premium to the current SP sooner rather than later hence the disjointed ramblings…..