SolGold Share Chat (SOLG)

It was on the 14th April, if my memory is correct.

Bonker99 - What about the gap around 6.5 - 6.75?

Chief Executive Officer, Dan Vujcic commented:

"I am pleased that conditions for the JCC transaction have been satisfied expeditiously. The investment strengthens our balance sheet and allows us to assess interesting opportunities to bring forward production at Cascabel and formulate a plan for our vast and valuable exploration portfolio. Technical input from JCC, at their cost, will also contribute significantly in terms of savings and timing of assessments of Cascabel. We are focused on unlocking value for our shareholders and for Ecuador"

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/solgold/news/rns/story/xlo5kpx

Agreed, there's some technical resistance at about 7.4p which it needs to break and stay above first.

It does it several times a day/week/month.

A pivotal move would be to get above 10p and not drop back.

This is potentially a pivotal move here above 7p this week ...

Pbow, you're again assuming that we will be mining or operating Cascabel.

Dan could announce a JV tomorrow which can include selling 50% of ENSA to Jiangxi in return for Jiangxi covering full capex/opex bill.

I don't think the government will be standing in their way if that kind of commitment is made.

Separately, it also avoids a messy takeover battle which would suit the Chinese fine.

Yes rk that was the statement I thought Jack would be having wet dreams over.

Fort it would be a bit concerning if they need to complete the Decline before they can fully derisk as the deline will take 4 years to build.

You can probably work out the cost using estimation tools and the information given in the PFS. The method for construction is drill and blast so they will prob need additional license / permit for the explosives (maybe they have that already?). The actual cost of the declines isn't specified. If memory serves me Scott gave a rate per M in one of his presentations. The number of meters is given in the PFS.

The problem with starting the build of the Decline now is you would have to pay for ventilation and dewatering. Do we want to do that at the moment?

Yes, by financing deal, I also meant a streaming deal for CU offtake.

Thanks Andrew

I'm in regular dialogue with Ingo and on the subject of gold plays he commented:

"SOLG is just not able to make use of the high gold price"

I think it's pretty obvious they need the decline sorted before they can really derisk the project. That's the problem with block cave... it takes a lot of capex just to derisk it...

Do we have a number on the decline cost?? I recall Darryl talking about this about 3 years ago and was sure he stated about $200m?

Pbow... how much do you think the decline will cost?

And my assumption is that it will be a copper streaming deal because mainstream finance would be out of the question since the Bond Market collapse triggered by Trump...or at the very least prohibitively expensive.

And we certainly don't want a Convertible financing which would massively dilute equity...

There's never been a correlation between the two, largely because spot price is now and the gold coming out of Cascabel is at least five years away.

Noboa began reforming their mining legislation a long time ago.

We will begin construction during 2025

Yes, agreed. There needs to be a financing deal for the c.$950m (or whatever the value was) in place to release the FNV funds for construction. My assumption is that the financing deal will come on the back of the DFS.

This is a major frustration...a couple of years ago I would have said that there was at least some correlation between SOLG and the Gold price...that seems to have disappeared...

I've just charted SOLG vs XAU and that correlation disappeared after August 2022 and there has been a 130% decline in the relative values since...

And yet Gold currently accounts for 44% of the value of the metal in the ground ATMO...

Thanks, I hadn't twigged that it's covered by the same permits, it makes a lot of sense to do it that way......for whoever buys it.

I'm very clear that particularly since Keith Marshall looked at it, we would start with Open Pit mining and concurrently commence shafting the declining passage into the centre of the ore and then in the third phase open up the block cave.

You mean "streamlining the permitting process" PBow?

Fair point.

I would only add that the "Feasibility Study" or in this case AKA the 'DFS' is the point at which the 'Financing Decision' is made.

And Scott gave a very strong hint that the remaining $900 million (or less if Tandy and other review work show cost efficiencies, especially based on an accelerated development and a simpler, cheaper startup to mining and processing) would come from a copper streaming deal...

Hopefully copper will continue to recover towards its ATH to improve the economics on this.

Tandayama-Ameríca makes the difference because its covered by the same permit as Cascabel. So ultimately when we get the license whats quicker the open pit or the block cave. They can speed up the block cave a little by starting the decline now but I don't see why they would do that as it would introduce opex cost.

Absolutely agree, as a starter for ten or a summary it amalgamates results quite nicely - especially on more popular topics.

My problem is that it suffers the same censorship/bias as google searches and the younger generations of idiots will take it as Gospel.

Meanwhile the licensing for Alpala continues to take an age. How can the open pit at Tandayama expedite metal recovery if it will be subject to the same painful delays/bureaucracy?

At least 2yrs from now then.

Best,

Bottom drawer and forget about this share.

The damage has been done,

Scot wasted time , trying to bluff his empty hand.

I find it a useful tool to get a quick opinion but I would agree I wouldnt stake anything major on it. I think for getting a guide to a process it is useful and gives a good indication if not 100% accurate. But I would say what it says about the time frame for changing a law seems eminently reasonable/ realistic.