Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
There's a lot to read and it's far more detailed than we've been used to, but the overwhelming impression is of a company which has hunkered-down and is concentrating on the SR. The good news is that the cost saving initiatives mean that we have have sufficient liquidity until June 2024.
My post was an hour behind this morning still a few problems I guess
Still is I see
Agreed addicknt, the strategic review is going to show us the renewed company direction.
Looks like we are going for a cheaper version to bring Alpala to production at first glance, but haven't read it yet.
Bubble, your post was an hour behind because the fella who sorts it, had to read it first, poor bu**er fell asleep out of sheer boredom
Network problems I think needalife
Q, ready it first then.
As they state, the SR "includes exploring and pursuing opportunities to enhance Company value such as evaluating
financing alternatives, potentially spinning out non-Cascabel assets to shareholders, selling an interest in Cascabel
at a value-justifying price, or other related transactions."
Nothing about any version of Alpala to bring to production.
TI, I'd love to know how financing can be organised without a DFS.
The Italian good point there ,indeed it looks like a spin off sale add shareholders value or special divi
Yo yo strategy, years ago I requested to be on Solg BOD on this bb
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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??
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.
Thank you addicknt, I guess we await the strategic review.
We have to find $192m by the end of the year to fund our commitments under the IPA. This is not going to happen. So I can only assume this is a critical part of the ongoing discussion/renegotiation. In any event, I wonder how they decided on the 430m figure in the first place - was it plucked out of thin air? It seems excessive and arbitrary.
There's an awful lot which could be said about our current situation, but one thing's for sure - the SR really MUST deliver some solutions.