Member Info for addicknt

Come on , Pbow, be fair! As you know, there aren't any French people in Canada, so little wonder it took them over a year to find one.

You're the person who knows this company so well you actually thought it was AIM listed. Care to comment?

Stas, Solg is NOT an AIM listed company.

Q, obviously the company will no longer have to produce the MD&A, which in truth was only of interest to the extent it showed us the cash flow and period end bank balance, which of course is valuable and I'd hope they'd find some way to inform us of the position in the future...but they probably won't.The rest was more or less repetition.

All this stuff about Nobby's trip to China and what's going to happen once we depart TSX is speculative tosh.

Pbow, for the love of god, will you please stop posting facts!

RT, I agree with your 17:40 post.

It's a pain and it sends a mixed message to the market with regard to Ecuador being a mining friendly jurisdiction, but it isn't a deal breaker as far as Cascabel is concerned.

Stas, repeating your argument again and again on here will not give you the answers you want. The ONLY way to get them is to talk to the company, and I suggest you try Smith first.

RT, I suppose if we look at our situation and the astonishing disparity between the market cap and NPV, it comes down to a few very straightforward factors: Jurisdiction, dreadful past management, the technical challenge involved at Cascabel and the cost of development. Only one of these issues is within our control, which in any event will be irrelevant in any takeover discussion.

NAV/NPV will be important, but these three factors will weigh heavily, especially jurisdiction.

Am I gloomy? No, and that's because the asset is so strategically important. But do I expect us to get some stellar valuation along the lines of Stas20's figures? No, I do not.

RT, many more factors other than NAV come into play when deals are done in this sector.

Stas, he isn't. He doesn't hide his identity and his profile is available on Linkedin. If I were you, I'd ignore absolutely everything Panda says...he's barking mad.

Pbow, it wasn't that long ago the government were claiming it would start in 2025.

With regard to which commodity prices should be used, there are many interesting articles to be found in a Google search, including some interesting legal case studies.

The conclusion appears to be that there is no definitive answer. Each method, as outlined by the Canadian Institute of Mining, has its positives and negatives.

So what should Solg do? I'd suggest it's likely that, subject to fluctuations between now and the completion of the DFS, the company will apply higher prices, but they won't use spot prices. In other words, it'll be a compromise and will be based upon prudence, which in itself is a highly subjective term.

The key question is, what part will either the applied NPV/NAV play in a sale negotiation? It will be the benchmark, but no more than that.

Stas, you're right, there are a number of idiots on here who are intent on disrupting this board and spend their time either attacking other posters or playing down the company's prospects. However , they are not to be confused with various long term holders who are justifiably frustrated/angry with the utter mess successive management teams have made over the years.

Most people only continue to hold here because they know what we're sitting on and are praying that the new team are able to deliver shareholder value.

For my own part, a few weeks ago I had an extremely interesting discussion with Smith , details of which I posted here, and I came away with renewed optimism and a belief that at last we have some people who will grip the situation and stabilize what was a very fragile situation.

However, as Pbow has said, we need to confront reality and what may, on paper, look like a no-brainer, in fact comes with a great deal of baggage.

Anyway, keep up the good work, it's good to have a newcomer with a positive outlook to counter some of the complete nonsense some people post.

BTW, before you label me as some kind of deramping troll, you should be aware that I'm regarded by some as one of the rose-tinted brigade and an Uber ramper. I'm not, but I do attempt to be as objective as I can.

Stas, bit of a daft comment. No I'm not Pbow, I simply don't understand why you and RT appear to be reluctant to address the question to our chairman.

RT, I meant Paul Smith not Stackhouse.

RT, I've suggested it already, but why don't you get the answer from the horse's mouth and ask PS? I'm sure he'll reply. A definitive answer from him would stop everyone going round in circles.

RT, I think it would be worthwhile directing a question to either DV or PS about this matter.

RK, thanks for the background.

RK, PS was of the opinion that Newmont aren't interested in Cascabel, but do have an interest in backing ExCo. Obviously, in the light of the daft proposal for a new mining supervision levy they may have changed their mind.

I mentioned the takeover of Adriatic the other day and I've just had a cursory glance at their accounts.

The company had revenue of $27m for the y/e Dec 2024 and generated a loss of $45m (loss of 22m in previous year) The stated net asset position for the plc was $351m. During the financial year they raised 130m.

As we know, the deal values the business at $1.3bn. I assume therefore, that when they referred to the deal valuing the assets at 1x they were referring to their mines not the plc accounts. If this is the case, it supports our argument that any deal done here will be based upon Cascabel and not the plc; but that's not news for most of us.

Sure, they are producers, but they are also a minnow when compared to us.

As I said, this was based only upon a cursory glance - never a good idea - and I don't claim to know anything about the company. RK, I think you said you were an investor? What's your view? Have I got this right?

The proposed new levy has been suspended for the time being and further talks between the government and miners will continue. It's anticipated the discussions will last a month. A compromise looks as if it's on the cards.