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.
As you would expect, SC seemed pretty confident at the Denver conference and in his own mind appears to have a "clear roadmap", even if we don't. I wonder if this is a result of what has happened during the past 12 months of the SR?
He has told us there's plenty of interest in Cascabel and that numerous parties have signed ndas and some are still using the data room (I know some people think he's lying, but I'm not one of them). Have the most interested potential buyers said to him, " we're very keen to move forward with Cascabel, but you've really got to get the various permits/IPA etc in place before we move"?
SC is completely confident he'll get them, but knows it's going to take another six months. The feedback has given him sufficient confidence to believe he has plenty of serious buyers, hence the optimism.
As for the naivety, did they start the SR too early in the belief they could persuade people to move without the de-risking? Did he think he had enough evidence to persuade people of the case without actually having the various signed agreements? If this was the case, it really was naive wishful thinking.
I agree addicknt.
I myself thought we would see something of some significance this October, November.
But looking more like March next year.
I do believe we get a JV with a lower cost start up mine, which will produce revenue early on to finance us to a full block cave operation.
Signing an NDA doesn’t mean anything in reality, other than it allows a party to see some details…. Beyond that it means nothing… I’ve signed many in my time and then walked away from an offered contract.
However if we are going to do wishful thinking… let’s do that…. Let’s just suppose there is a party, already up for a deal, dependant on technicals like permits etc….. it could also make sense said party could make no further exploration of any promising tenements a caveat of any deal….. so as not to chance any share price rise on any discovery…. That would/could explain Scott’s bizarre hammering home on multiple occasions, that no drilling is taking place anywhere, at the recent presentation…..
Hhmmmm. Conspiracies….
Looking back at Scott’s comments in the past regarding the start of the decline.. maybe we have all miss understood what he was saying… perhaps he was simply referring to his plans for the share price…
Addicknt, inflation issues and spike in interest rates kicked off in full metal jacket mode from September last year. So I think it's fair to say that in that kind of climate it's hard ... very hard to discuss asset sales that require capex of $3bln or more. A new downsized (halved) PFS projected for Q1 will have to take fixed prices on rates, spot metal prices etc etc. It's likely they will use US inflation index or industry standard which means it might be close to or good number to use in PFS and still get a nice IRR number. They need the number above 20%. So bit of a waiting game imho as absolutely no point at all releasing a PFS with temporary high inflation numbers embedded.
He seemed pretty excited at the downscaled PFS so perhaps that looks alot better than many think based on a $1bln capex.
In simple terms... will it be closer to a 30% of previous PFS? Or more likely 25%? So possibly 0.5Mt of copper, 1Moz of gold and 5Moz of silver over 5 years with profits kicking in as early as year 3 if assuming some cash deployed to do block cave investigations or prep for phase 2? These days it's all about 'instant' results and long term high capex projects are resisted more today than ever. Lets face it the market is pricing us to do very little over the next 3 to 4 years. If suddenly we are talking about a phase 1 build and export commencing in 2025 (end) then that might kick start all kinds of rerates and possibilities and of course... kick off a bid war. The latter seems key to me. SOLG have to get themselves into a position whereby a super majors feels it's time to step in and nip it all in the bud or fear losing the opportunity it entirely.
The phase 1 (smaller scale) plans opens doors to more investors/partners. Opens doors to easier funding options (even Franco, Mitsui, Valuestone et al will be possible if seeking funding in a $1bln mine build. It also opens doors to debt finance etc etc. I guess the super majors will only move when they feel threatened of when they feel SOLG is moving out of the obvious dark corner that they are currently being pushed into as the clock ticks down and there's zero chance of funding a $3bln mine without giving away significant equity.
What market cap would you expect from a business doing 0.5Mt of copper, 1Moz of gold and 5Moz of silver over 5 to 7 years
with clear route to phase 2 and rinse and repeat of the same model another 2 or 3 times. More than possible to get to the full 3Mt of copper or higher, 8Moz of gold+ and 21Moz silver+ over 3 or 4 phases or approx 25 years.
I'll let others run the numbers. But Scott is clearly excited at that and I can understand why. It makes sense.
Orthern - I agree.
My belief is that they will not release a PFS update and or result of any SR as both are solely a tactic to delay things whilst permits are finalised over the next 8-12 weeks.
If a deal has been done which it seems the govt already knows about... it would be full of condition precedents which would largely be related to achieving the various main permit approvals therefore lets tell small stakeholders that we are running internal programs (Scott mentioned that we are preparing 'an internal PFS which will be presented to the Board in December/January. This is bullturd)
We have received some strong hints lately that ellude to a conditional arrangement being already agreed.... These are:
*All drilling has been stopped across tenements (they would only do this at the request of a potential buyer willing to pay a price they accept, and the buyer not wanting more value being realised by solg pre announcement of any pending deal).
*Govt illustrating that we are proceeding in various new articles ( why are they confident regarding the ability to fund the capex)
*Govt extending extraction permits (why halt the progress of all permits across Ecuador, however they announce that solgold's permit will be the only permit extended)
*Solgold finalising enviro permits and tailings dam survey (sounds like the eventual buyer of the project believes our low profile and credibility is better placed to secure these items. Proposing a process such as a PFS update can help buy more time - a major wouldnt care about starting small. The original PFS would be the target).
*Scott saying 'we won't develop this but its going to get developed' (we await the news).
...the Ecuadorian Govt and Solgold have major confidence in this project proceeding..... What do they know which us plebs don't know?
BBG…. Why 8-12 weeks? I’d suggest if there is a deal lingering in the background… you’d be closer to 8-12 months
Hi Orthern - my theory is that once all permits have been achieved (I believe imminent which Scott may have also revealed but lets say 8 - 12 weeks), then development can start and this is when the funding proposal is revealed.
Add - there were plenty calling for a strategic review of SOLG before the merger with CGP was announced so personally I'm not convinced it's fair to now label it as naivety, unless it comes with an admission that those calls were the same.
Bozi ….. re reviews
My fear is that the board get unseated/ or at least a vote of no confidence, and the whole way forward needs reviewing again with God knows who at the helm.
Current BOD doing themselves no favours and certainly not winning over pi’s …… if they told us what was happening we may feel differently ( I realise of course they are restricted in what they can say to some extent )
Bozi, I'm more than happy to admit I was delighted when it was announced. This was based on two things: 1) an assumption that they had a pretty clear view of what they wanted and were confident it was deliverable in the nearish term, and 2) investor fatigue on my behalf.
I was wrong on the first point, and my fatigue has worsened.
DBW, perhaps Ship could pass on the message to solg during their next call that they need to throw us a bone, otherwise we will be siding with BHP at the next AGM.
Fed up of hearing Scott banging on about the rocks, while ignoring the fact that the SP is at rock bottom. So disappointed with his lack of concern for the SP and him not doing anything to turn it around.
Eloro
I’m sure they’re fully aware of the general frustration at lack of any clarity.
Come on guys, "things" are not clear only to the extent that we are dealing with a South American government particularly at the wrong time, and with possible investors who have not yet felt the urgency of buying us.
It has become clear by now that NM thought he could sell it but did not do the right things and in fact alienated stakeholders on all fronts, and it's clear that the positive disruption that SC is trying to deliver is based on making the project feasible and economical in the real world, where the probability of either finding a buyer, a JV partner or else raise money for ourselves is higher.
The last thing you want to do is to vote SC out before he can bring the strategy HE HAS EXPLAINED to fruition. The only change we need, is a project that is objectively feasible and economical, and it was not under NM or DC. What would we get is SC is pushed out, other than another setback, lack of clarity and direction, and more exposure to the vultures who are just waiting to get us when we are too weak to negotiate?
Agree Italian
We don’t want another change at the top right now
He was always going to need time to unwind some of the damage , especially that done during DC’s short tenure
I most certainly won't be voting against Caldwell. He and his supporters are the only people to offer any hope of getting out of this situation - it's just going to take longer than we'd hoped.
It might have done just about enough to secure his job at next AGM but it certainly hasn't earned those Bonus shares this year that's for sure, so he can give them back. If they think they are going to award more shares next year... then they can properly xxxx off! The days of awarding directors in this company should be over. It's time for them to deliver.
I understand what you are saying Guys,
But we cannot allow Scott and the others to take us for granted. It should be a 2 way street. Right now it's 1 way. They are taking fat salaries while we are left in the dark with an opened SR, decimated SP, with no certainty when or if things will change. I believe that rewards should be earned and I haven't seen what he has done to warrant our unwavering support. Just endless talk, and talk about rocks.
It’s classic mushroom management, keep everyone in the dark and throw s**t at them
Definitely not good enough for my vote. New broom but same old mess
Aand another one for the bin....
But that's exactly what he's going to do Fort, and despite the fighting talk, there's nothing you or I can do about it.
I have no problem with options as long as they are ambitious and performance related
DBW... do you know (or have we been told) what performance criteria Scott needs to meet to justify those awards. I keep hearing that there was supposed to be somekind of alignment or targets being publicised but I haven't seen anything? Buried in the MD&A somewhere perhaps? If I recall... the options have been granted... end of.
Fort ….. all we ever got was details to follow
Padmaster and several others spent 8 years doting on mathers picture on the wall, berating any who didn't bow to the messiah.
Eventually all but padmaster saw he wasn't the man they thought, and voted him out.
Are we to let the likes of adikt, dbw, fort and one or two others, with their leave things as they are views take us down the the same 8 year path mather took us.
Personally I’d like Mather to return as CEO. When he was at the wheel this ran from 2p to 45
Subsequent CEOs have brought lack of direction, lack of news and general slide in share price
Being Mather back being news back let us get out!