Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Quady ,yes that's right advance in other words get it ready to be sold imho then concentrate on other tenaments ,bear in mind the license is fast approaching expenditure consequently that's why they quote this ,so only a matter of time imho before it's sold ,for how much I wouldn't know tbh as value in ground has changed
Would be interested to see the breakdown of Keith Pollocks and Ryan Wilson's salaries. The two combined come to $418,040. Caldwell is paid $95,513.
For comparison, last year it was reported that the combined salaries of Dennis Wilkins (Company Secretary), Benn Whistler (Technical Services Manager), Chris Connell (Regional Exploration Manager, resigned January 2022), Peter Holmes (Director of Studies), Ingo Hofmaier (Interim Chief Financial Officer), Lisa Park (Metallurgy Manager), and Tania Cashman (Chief People Officer) came to just $371,475, which seems almost implausibly low?!
To clarify the below, we did drill at Tandy (2,558m) and Moran (437m) but it looks like that expenditure was booked in the period ending Dec '22.
I notice we did not spend a cent on further exploration on Cascabel (which I believe covers Tandy) in Jan-March this year. We have spent $283.5m since 2013. The IPA, which we are renegotiating, required us to spend $430m by the end of 2023 on Cascabel exploration, so we are $146.5m short. Any potential buyer will want this issue sorted by SOLG prior to any takeover, and the company expects this to be done by year end.
I think a big dollop of patience is required here unfortunately.
Good morning again bubble.
I have finished reading.
I can see why addicknt has taken his view.
But I think it is clear by now for everyone that has read it.
That the strategic review is key.
All the people on here that said the strategic review would never happen have been yet again been shown to be talking nonsense.
Looks like we are going to reduce the costs to get Alpala to production.
Now as we proceed, someone may want to make an offer, but that has always been the case.
So as I see it, very little has changed, apart from we advance Cascabel.
3 ....
3
Less open and less clarity.
SM, sadly, yes. Total fees of $15m for the merger. These things don't come cheap
I wonder if Citi are still on the case and how much their monthly retainer is?
Add, unchanged. Also agree with your early post RE spin off of assets excl. Cascabel into NewCo.
Surprised that we paid Maxit around $5m from July '22 - March '23. Does that seem right to you given your corporate finance background?
Following this MD&A do you feel 1) more confident 2) less confident 3) your opinion is unchanged?
Do you feel the new team is more ,or less open?
Do you feel it has provided more, or less clarity?
This was their first opportunity to explain themselves and I'm trying to work out whether they've done so clearly. My gut feel is that it revealed a bit more than normal, but we will continue to be largely in the dark until the SR emerges (btw, I couldn't find any repeated reference to the end June deadline previously mentioned)
Incidentally, I was amused to read the description of employees as having been 'severed'. Obviously, not amused that they lost their jobs, but by the brutal use of the word. No gentle touchy-feely UK HR boll***s.
Thank you addicknt, I guess we await the strategic review.
Q, that's a reasonable question and I don't have an answer. My suspicion is we do not. In fact, given we've completely stopped work on the DFS, I can see no way we could raise the sort of sums necessary.
Addicknt, I think the spin theory has been the favoured or most expected one for sometime now. As we know SOLG is primarily an exploration business that struck it big with Cascabel. If you look at how the business has been run for the last coupe of years then it's effectively already operating as TWO different companies. We've had funds raised for ENSA/Cascabel that have been ring fenced and funds raised for ongoing exploration. That's the clear issue being played out there right in front of us.
You can't have a company that continually 'ring fences' cash raises under the same roof as each part of the business carries risk both negative and positives which can affect the investment in both.
Far simpler all round (including in accounting terms and staff based costs) to split the business now into a development company eg ENSA and the exploration company... SOLG. That way they can get some market froth value for the exploration side of the business which has for a while seen limited share price growth even though they have devolved the likes of Porvenir and Tandy, both of which have sizeable resources and easier to mine.
ENSA is a big ticket item. It's not just the wonga required for shareholders to hand it over to a buyer or partner... it's the $3bln to $4bln+ to fund the asset. Any buyer has to pump close to $6bln into it.
I think the interesting point from the MD&A is the 'phased' discussion. This spanks of the 'chinese' and follows exactly the same format as Mirador. Start off with the open pit (Tandy) and get some infrastructure moving while doing the mine shaft investigations on block caving. That could see a breakeven on spend within 3 years... even some profits but it's neutralish. That could cover approx $1bln of the development leaving the block cave work to kick in with a rev stream from year 3 onwards via the open pit mining development. I'd rather see ENSA SOLD lock stock and barrel but it might end up being a partnered deal for the next 3 years with staged or phased % interests purchased by partner as development progresses. It shares the risk but also shares the upside. That's not fast and smart.... that's long and risky. So I hope they don't opt for that version and instead go for the ENSA sale in full and let the buyer do the phased planning. The trouble is... Lasso wants it moving fast... Chinese clearly keen but don't rush things and then there's BHP... they are the most likely candidate to fast track ENSA rather than phase it. I guess we'll find out post Sept or October whether Newmont want to sell NCM's 10% stake. I'm not sure how well they get on with BHP but if they are friendly, then I suspect BHP will get that 10% stake. With 20% holding, could they acquire the extra 10%+ that would potentially stick a large spoke in the wheel of a takeover??
Addicknt may I ask a question.
For the final licensing to be in place so that Solgold is in a go situation, doesn't the financing have to be in place.
Maybe this is what Rick Rule was alluding to.
Sorry, my last sentence wasn't clear. I meant the licensing approvals have to happen this year, which in turn will clear the way for a realisation once they have been granted.
Smelter deal?, available to anyone you buys it Quady part of sale I would think , however please continue reading and let me know if you think it wouldn't be
My take.
We will create a publicly quoted vehicle for the other assets and we will be given pro-rata free shares. Sound Energy and BCN did the same thing and I made money on both. The IPO will be accompanied by an equity fund raise.
The work currently underway with regard to Cascabel, such as it is, will continue until the licence issues have been put to bed, at which point the asset will be marketed. These must be completed by year end, so we have a timetable, albeit an uncomfortable one. There will not be any financing package.
So, we have longer to wait for a Cascabel realisation, but it has to happen this year.
Good morning bubble, you are contradicting yourself.
The Franco Nevada deal, was done to raise money and act as a deterrent to us being acquired.
Any purchaser would hate the deal.
That's why BHP tried to stop it.
I am currently reading the release in full at the moment.
Just stopped for a cup of tea.
But I suggest you read it.
Quady you mentioned reducing costs there ,do you honestly think they are looking at taking cascabel to production?,as they quote funds till June 2024 does that not suggest offload cascabel and move into other tenaments , solgold are an explorer like NM has always said and history shows that is what he does prove it u sell it on with attachments like Franco deal ,any big conglomerate will be more than happy with that and other things in place ,all they have to do is mine it ,comon you must see this surely
Yep, try and stretch that $48m as long as they can.
That means exploration drilling and newsflow is going to be constrained.
I'm intrigued to see how they are going to shorten the development timeframe and I'm even more intrigued to see how they intend to get the share price into the sort of area where they would be happy to sell the stock previously held by Cornerstone.
Strategy (away from the SR) remains as clear as mud.
Good morning addicknt, you may well be right.
However I thought they did a good job to reduce production costs in the last PFS, and from the sound of the strategic review, they are looking at reducing them further.
Don't know if you remember they were looking at an open cut with higher grade nearer the surface to get income rolling in.
From memory I believe it was Tandy.
I wonder if the strategic review is looking at this as an option.
Q, in my opinion Ingo was being economical with the truth. As I've said before, he may have have had expressions of interest, but no more than that. We are not in a position to get commitments now, let alone three years ago.
Good morning Italian.
I was referring to this part.
Management is internally evaluating a phased approach to the development of Cascabel with the intent to reduce upfront capital and shorten the development schedule.
Also if we can get the start up costs to just over 1 billion.
Then when Ingo was around, he said we have that sum of money ready to go.
Agreed you would normally require a BFS after a DFS.
But their are other ways to fund Cascabel.
Yo yo strategy, years ago I requested to be on Solg BOD on this bb
The Italian good point there ,indeed it looks like a spin off sale add shareholders value or special divi