Member Info for Bozi

Beat me to it rcgl2.

I hadn't considered this before now, but it makes sense.

Addicknt

The wording is something like...

"For as long as the subscriber holds at least 10%..."

That made me change my mind as I was of the view the ability to appoint a director expired when the standstill did.

But in reality the standstill was one such term within the wider subscription agreement, rather than the basis for the document, if I'm making sense?

Rcgl2

Thanks. I concur having just read that section of the agreement.

The part of the RNS i flagged was quite confusing.

Apologies Quady. Consider me dismounted from my high horse.

Quady, with all due respect, i believe that is you reading it how you would like it to be. Unless there is a clause in the company's articles granting any 10% shareholder a director (there may well be i haven't checked) then your reading is based on zero fact/ evidence.

To the contrary i have provided a reference to the NCM agreement and a link to the BHP SSA.

The clause in the BHP SSA quite clearly references the SSA which as we know was for a fixed timeframe. If the right to a director remains post expiry then the wording of the RNS is misleading as Addicknt says.

I'm going to see if I can find the agreement itself.

Cheers Mog999.

Come on Quady. Is that your best argument?

Of course Newcrest weren't party to the SSA. They had their own formal agreement with SolGold (refer to RNS 30 August 2016 - https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SOLG/conditional-agreement-with-newcrest-lgwct6j339v6ic4.html).

The clause with BHP was simply an extension of the same award to Newcrest, the idea to ensure both shareholdings were pari passu, neither on any more favourable terms than the other.

I respect you for keeping to the company line on business strategy. Please don't make a habit of doing so only when it suits.

Jerry - sorry, just spotted your post. Board is running slowly for me and typing is slso problematic.

Completely in agreement with you.

Addicknt - you're not wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, the provision for BHP to appoint a director, was:

1) subject to the standard terms of the SSA, and
2) on the proviso BHP held at least 10% of SOLG

If there remains a facility for BHP to appoint a djrector and thst hasn't been accounted for within an addendum then the RNS has been poorly worded. "Under the SSA..." frames it as being specific to the standstill.

Q - RNS 16 October 2018

"Under the BHP SSA, BHP will have, subject to holding at least 10% of the share capital of SolGold, a right (but not an obligation) to appoint a Director to the Board of Directors of SolGold."

Keith - they seem to think the conductor is at 370 but the casing goes to 394.

Aside from that I agree with your comments. Lack of technical detail is a little disconcerting.

Plenty of buzzwords however about the speed of ED&M's mobilisation. Talk about the slimmest of silver linings.

Another trip to the barbers today I feel.

BBG - wind your neck in.

You're the one who has virtually called out every member of this board over recent weeks. Deranged, ridiculous behaviour.

How much do you think an asset with a NPV of $3.2bn now and no mining permits in place would fetch tomorrow?

£400-600m is probably the going rate.

Dont forget, I've been telling every man and his dog to hold this and be careful wishing for lowball bids. I'm not your enemy looking for the first trace spike I can get, unlike a few on this BB.

You can insert any amount you like in there DBW but my question remains.

20-30% of current NPV is c.£500-750m, so use that range if you want.

DBW - if we targetted first production from the portfolio from an Alpala block cave in 2029 then i agree it wouldn't be pretty.

But what about if Tandy was a starter pit at a fraction of the cost in, say, 2025 or 2026? Or, say we sold our 85% stake in ENSA for, say, £400m and the strategy became developing Porvenir with Rio the secondary project?

There has to be other ways of doing things without mass dilution but I'm not sure that investors are giving much consideration to them, such is the desire to wrap this up and either take some cash or shares of an acquirer.

Everyone who is big now was small one day. There's no better time to create a major then a bullish supercycle. It takes resolve though and stomach for the fight. (General comment and not pointing the finger)

Durham Fox - do you mean Craig Jones?

He was Newcrest.

DBW - you said quite categorically that we couldn't. I was hoping for some clarity on why (in theory).

I'm also not quite in agreement with your second point. SOLG doesn't have to say that it is going to production until the day a corporate event means that's not the case.

The whole production strategy was a 2017/18 ploy to try and stave off an early proposal like BHPs wasn't it?

If SOLG turned round tomorrow and said that it was an Australian explorer developer of assets in Ecuador with a pipeline of assets ready to be commercialised in partnership with major miners who would bat an eyelid?

Forgetting what has actually happened for a moment, if in practice that means we get an asset to PFS/DFS stage and then do a JV with a major whereby they take 90% and we're left with 10% on a free carry basis, thst would be a valid enough business plan surely?

If SOLG actually made that plan public to market, would it illicit a big deal on Alpala/Cascabel quicker than the "we march to production" plan? I think there's every chance it would because at the moment miners know we have plenty of social capital but a lack of USD.

All your other views i hsve absolutely no issue with. You could be bang on the money.

Absolutely, Addicknt.

All I'm trying to get as, is say for arguments sake BHP decided to go big in Africa and Newcrest wanted to focus on Aus projects and Barrick entered Quebec, could SOLG in theory go it alone.

I think they could. It wouldn't be pretty or stress-free and it would require the longest of longs to ride out any market volatility.

I never said we could DBW. I was purely commenting hypothetically when asked for a SP forecast by Patrm.

But as we're struggling to shake the point, have you seen the PFS? How can you say with absolute clear cut certainty that SOLG can't develop Cascabel.

This isn't me sitting on the other side of the coin. I want to know what the thinking is that means this is a non-starter.

I'm not interested in theories like "X, Y or Z will buy us out..."

SOLG maintain that this project is highly financeable. Franco's NSR suggests they're right to be confident.

Is it beyond the pale of the possible that SOLG highlight a starter project that requires much less capex than the Alpala block cave that they can finance through a mix of debt and equity, the profits of such allow them to build a solid financial footing and apply for more credit in their own name?

As i say, forget market pressures and previously anticpated timeframes. If left to work and subject to identifying a suitable project within the existing asset base, i think SOLG could potentially go it alone. That's not to say it wouldn't be high risk, painstakingly slow and an attractive investment case this side of 2040 but I'm sure if you spoke to company (and i know you have in the past) they would be of a view at odds with your own.

The proof will be in the pudding for us all. We're edging closer.

DBW - Franco only have 1% of future profits from production. I say only but I'm sure you get my drift.

If SOLG sold ENSA why couldn't we go it alone?

The best solution for everyone might be CGP flogging their 15% and SOLG flogging 35% to go 50/50 with a partner. I get this doesn't make much commercial sense for the partner but it would be good for SOLG as stale bulls get to reassess and true holders get the journey they envisage.

Patrm

Production isn't even a factor here. Please don't confuse me as someone who wants death by 1000 cuts between now and 2029.

Any share price post production would depend on SOLGs ability to:

- Release a credible and viable financial plan for Cascabel.
- Secure finance for phase 1 construction
- Achieve first pour followed by commercial production.

I actually think that in a production scenario we'd certainly see sub 10p at some point as bad news or a bump in the road is inevitable.

But eventually if we got to the stage of making £50/100/150m a year from say the early 2030s then a market cap of £3-5bn wouldn't be out of the question. What share price that equates to depends on what dilution takes place between now and then.

The issue with SOLG is that many want a conclusion in 2021, 2022 or 2023. In reality, the SOLG opportunity is one that should be left to play out over the next 10-20yrs. In fact, these shares are best left to whoever is in our Will. Wives, children, grandchildren. But I'm blue in the face trying to make that point.

Not sure Swest.

Demerger could be back end of the year. We're still to see a timetable or an offer doc /prospectus for gold newco.

Personally i don't see the demerger as all that. More housekeeping before the lithium assets move on to the next phase.

Loads of operational news to come from Ghana and CDI now we've sat out the summer lull. There's positions being taken amongst a seller clearing down and we'll soon get an idea for what the next 6-12 months holds in terms of asset development.

A nice Zaranou update before the firm demerger details drop in the next few weeks should stir the market up.

Post demerger there will be loads of drill results and resource upgrade work to show the market what we and Piedmont already know.