Member Info for AROK1975

Spot on, addicknt - the swing from confident progress to a position that undervalues the asset really illustrates why clarity on valuation is critical.

Agreed - due process matters. In my view, process isn’t just procedure; it also requires shareholders have the information to judge value. Moving a bid from 24p to 28p isn’t value defence. For a Tier-1 asset, silence on valuation invites negative assumptions. If 28p is fair, the board should explain why - if not, say so. Gold Road shows what happens when boards follow process and back shareholders: a 44% uplift, IMO.

ATB

Wrong, using inventory accounting principle.

You initially buy 100 pies at £1 each, for a total cost of £100 (average £1/pie). Selling them yields £200 cash. Repurchasing 200 pies at £1 each costs another £200, using the full £200 proceeds plus your original £100 investment—resulting in a total investment of £300 for 200 pies (average cost £1.50/pie).

I can’t access the full Mining Journal piece either, but the thrust seems clear-

If a buyer wants a tier-one asset, they should pay a fair price for it. That debate isn’t coming from chat boards - it’s being raised by industry media.

GLA

Applying current spot metal prices and some back-of-the-envelope calculations, the NPV of the Cascabel project could reach $6.7bn (£1.64/share) - something every man and his dog already understands, even if the share price doesn’t. No numbers debate - just a gentle nudge. These are not official company or broker valuations and exclude any additional potential beyond the current PFS. #solgold #Cascabel

GLA

Exactly, Mf - with minerals at record highs, the recent re-rating above 32p looked data-driven rather than speculative. The RNS that followed halted that momentum, so clarity on any shift in the board’s strategy or risk assessment would be welcome, particularly given the years of investment and the scale of the asset.

ATB

March 2024 PFS remains the current baseline.

It put Alpala at approx US$3.2bn NPV using conservative metal prices. With Cu/Au now at record levels, like-for-like valuation is clearly higher, before any TAM upside. 28p is a market price, not a fundamentals verdict. CIPA/NPV needs to reflect this.

With assets of this scale, it’s also worth remembering that strategic or financial players (banks/majors) can still surface as white knights.

GLA

This isn’t hindsight criticism; it’s asking how 28p aligns with the expectations we were guided to - and if those expectations have shifted, it’s reasonable for the board to explain why. That said, the door isn’t closed on a better outcome; a white-knight scenario could still change the picture.

Frustrating, yes. Rocks & macros remain solid - Cascabel is still South America's largest undeveloped Cu-Au monster, with copper at records. IMO, they over-spun the timeline ( fast track to production / funding ease). I suspect, BHP/Newmont (inherited shares) chose to crystallise at 28p for portfolio reasons rather than on full project value.

That's why CIPA/NPV needs to reflect TAD-58 + self-power before calling this FAIR.

SolGold always planned own power for Cascabel ('part of our capex'). Good nudge, Adieuk32.

Latest decree? No capex hit, just validation. Worry off!

Recall TAD-58 (Aug 25): 140m @ 0.92% CuEq from 8m Tandayama. CEO: "most robust" near-surface for early cash flow.

Ignoring this de-risking starter pit in CIPA/NPV is scandalous - 28p "pah" - demand truth!

#SolGold #Cascabel

Fellow PIs worried about 'crash and burn' if deal fails - Worst case (CEO gone, JCC walks):

JPMorgan's 5.1% stake + other funds provide some floor.

Cascabel's IPA protection (tax/royalty stability, London arbitration) still there.

Copper/gold deficits don't vanish.

We've survived worse drops.

Real risk is voting blind without CIPA/NPV truth - stale data!

Have a great weekend all — here’s hoping next week brings clearer disclosure and, who knows, maybe even a white knight charging over the hill!

Folks - smart campaign focuses on disclosure/process over outright rejection (avoids disaster if vote fails). Instead, query Board, Why recommend miserly 28p after years of "won't let Cascabel go cheaply"'? Demand CIPA/NPV reasoning in circular. Pressure without peril.

force answers, avoid catastrophe, IMHO.

GLA

Brilliant move, Add - well done! Direct Panel engagement raises the bar.

ATB

I get the resignation creeping in with the new decree and endless uncertainty (despite 28p) - some have held years through wild swings. But structured pressure works, board replied where others got ignored. JP Morgan declares holding (major institutions don't just park cash in volatile miners without intent - suggests they see either undervaluation or optionality beyond 28p) - JCC knows disgruntled PIs exist - Takeover Panel monitoring, and now this institutional signal! Circular's not out—one coordinated nudge could still shift disclosure or timing, IMHO.

I've just sent this follow-up email to the Board (after their positive! reply). Feel free to copy/adapt and send your own - strength in numbers ahead of the scheme vote.

GLA

P.s. thanks Adieuk32 for the PUMA B example

Subject: SolGold - Urgent - Scheme Fairness Disclosure to Avoid Blocking Vote

Dear Board and Advisers,

Thank you for confirming engagement on UK Takeover Code and MAR disclosure obligations. The scheme's dual approval threshold - majority in number and 75% by value of votes cast - means a coordinated minority over 25% in value can block it outright.

Full disclosure is therefore critical to prevent such an outcome. Re. PUMA Brandenburg Ltd (2017) saw courts reject a scheme at a deep discount to NAV without strong justification - a 43% gap proved fatal.

At 28p, many long-term private investors see SolGold undervalued versus Cascabel's Tier-1 copper-gold potential amid structural deficits.

Without quantified details on updated NPV, Franco-Nevada streaming impacts, and Ecuadorian regulatory effects on capex/economics, shareholders risk uninformed votes and legal challenge.

Provide this analysis now to enable informed decisions and neutralise blocking risks.

Kind regards,

Thanks Damers. Just read the S&P via mining.com copper - AI demand +50% to 42Mtpa by 2040 and Gold $4,462oz records, it feels like fistful of gold granules slipping through fingers at 28p. Cascabel's Tier-1 data demands valuation explanation, hopefully not Decree 273 excuse!

Keep emailing for TAM deck!

Got the reply as did many of you. Takeover Code blocks specifics now (Rule 20.1 - they must publish scheme circular about 28 days (late Jan). Mass PI emails = documented "shareholder concern" forcing fuller TAM/Cascabel coverage vs boilerplate) but confirms board 'actively engaging advisers' on disclosure duties. Pressure WORKS. Keep the emails coming - circular will show our impact! #SOLG #Cascabel".

AtB

Thanks pbow - link proves Decree 273 slams miners far past power plants alone. But this info drought forces pure guesswork, second-guessing, and zero sound judgement on the scheme vote. Cascabel's still Tier 1 copper-gold - chicken feed for majors like BHP/Jiangxi at true NPV. Demand full disclosure NOW via investors@solgold.com. No data, no decision. Keep blasting! #SOLG #Cascabel

ATB

Recent decrees focus power supply mandates for miners, not new hurdles.

CIPA limbo persists regardless - perfect ammo for our emails demanding full TAM/Cascabel disclosure before 28p surrender. Keep firing to investors@solgold.com! No tools needed - reality check complete. #SOLG #Cascabel

Held SOLG far too long through the trenches to let it slip away at 28p without a fight. All we're asking for are the full Cascabel updates they've teased—nothing more. Keep firing those emails, PIs!