Member Info for addicknt

E.T you say they want us for pr and political reasons; they don't. They want us because we're sitting on a huge resource and they are in real need of replenishing their reserves and securing their future. And this is true of many other miners.

The very positive aspect of this is that it should make Equador more investable as a destination for mining. The great fear for mining companies nowadays is getting caught-up in some dodgy corruption scandal in a third rate dictatorship.
The greater the transparency, the better.

I have a degree of sympathy for Johnson as something very similar happened to me.
I was CEO of a company where the FD had a form of mental breakdown and started very cleverly hiding stuff. He waited for our auditors to finish their audit so that he'd have a full year to cover his tracks. Inevitably, it unravelled after about four months and, as ever, it was the bank balance which eventually revealed the truth.
The point of mentioning this is that a clever FD can hide stuff and if the CEO is complicit, it's near as damn it impossible for the non-execs to see it.
By the way, i'm not excusing anyone (myself included), I'm just pointing out the reality of life.

From what I can see, this move is designed to stop the government awarding concessions unilaterally. It's an attempt to prevent corruption and is not a move to ban mining or to remove already existing concessions. I guess they are talking about some form of committee taking over responsibility.

Uncle, indeed, although it's worth noting that others are.

interesting development over at our near neighbours.

If I may use that awful management consultant word; what are my "takeaways" (ugh!, gag, splutter!) from this?

1. The company should make this fact absolutely crystal clear on it's web site and in it's presentations. I can easily imagine people being put-off by the opacity.

2. That environmentalist web site is utter shite. (I could go on about it, but I guess you all get the picture)

3. It is very important to keep digging away until you get the answers you need in order to make an informed investment decision.

I have now received the news I really wanted:
Dear *****
None of SolGold's concessions are within protected areas. All of SolGold's are within areas where we are legally allowed to conduct exploration activities.
Kind regards
Anna.
This is extremely welcome news and I'm very grateful for the eventual response.

Just tried it again and the problems had magically disappeared.
To be honest, I'm none the wiser, but that's probably due to stupidity.

pad, When I try to access the links on the site I get a warning notice saying they contain harmful content. Have you had any problems?

zeus, isn't every investor focussed on risk? If not, they jolly well should be.
The thorny problem here is that getting a grip on the political and environmental detail has proved to be impossible. The government web sites are not that helpful and the available maps are hopeless. And dd on the political side would obviously change from regime to regime. The company information is not that helpful either. It needs much more detail.
And I agree with your observations about the other concessions.
Conclusion?: Cascabel looks good (touch wood etc) the rest is simply unknown...and I wish it wasn't.

AKG, no. The percentage holding would still be below the threshold.

Sav, no, I don't. What's his email address?
Strider, you could well be right. It may be that discussions at the local level are ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage. However, Anna's refusal to reply is both rude and ill-judged. I'm not impressed at all. After all, we are paying her to do the job of investor relations.

Jerry, ignored. Three times.

Strider, I'd thought of all the possible reasons for them not answering, both positive and negative, but my overwhelming belief is that my request should have been answered. The reason being that I was simply asking for a statement of fact and this information should be freely available to shareholders. In fact, it should have been available from day 1, as it is clearly one of the risk factors. As far as I can see, it does not appear in the Cautionary Note and I believe it should.
Investor communication is essential and the company is pretty good at it. However, they appear very happy to share the good stuff without keeping us fully appraised of the risks.
I've said it before, but private investors have a real job on their hands when it comes to risk assessment and it doesn't help when a company appears reluctant to be crystal clear about matters. Yes, the information is price sensitive, but that doesn't mean it should not be out in the open.
Btw, I'm not suggesting we have a problem, but simply that opacity does nothing to assist the position of shareholders; quite the contrary, it adversely effects it.

The key requirement as far as environmental issues is concerned is that of consultation.
The UN has a guideline that all local communities must be consulted about any mining concessions, wherever they are located in the world. Equador follows those guidelines. However, it should also be noted that the government of Equador reserves the right to ignore the outcome of the consultations and in some circumstances, has done so...although not in others.
The other absolutely key requirement is adherence to the environmental strictures, and we have been told repeatedly that we are doing so.
I think we can assume Cascabel has gone through the process (and as I understand it, it's not located in one of the most environmentally sensitive areas).However, I've been unable to establish what is the status of our other concessions and I'm sad to report that the company has not replied to my requests for comments on the issue. Does anyone have any precise information about this?

Another brick in the defensive wall being built around SOLG.
Traditionally, this sort of thing could be seen as a negative. However, in this instance, it's all about making an un-solicited and opportunistic offer, nigh on impossible...or at least, difficult. We know we'll be sold, but everything that's being done is designed to ensure the process remains within the companies control in order to ensure maximum value.
This is a very sensible move for both companies.

WKW, make sure you talk to someone. It's very, very important to be open with both yourself and others, you'llll get afar better perspective. Don'y try to bury it.
I'm sure you can see your way through this.

winchpete, there's no "probably" about it; the company will be de-listed.

BTF, the banks and other lenders have quite clearly refused to do that. Under this arrangement their position is secured.
Not good for shareholders, but they are at the bottom of the pile in these circumstances.
There were two alternatives here; this deal or administration. The bidder could have waited for admin, but it would have run the risk of losing the flight slots and therefore, all of the value. Hence the nominal offer of 1p.
It's ver sad that it's come to this, but the writing was on the wall and has been for some time.