Member Info for Bozi

If only it were that simple Dean. The fact you have 4 recommends suggests a lot of people are just wanting to ramp this or genuinely don't have a clue. Let's hope it's the former.

You can't just extrapolate an offer value based on tonnage. I'm sorry.

Bacanora are a bit further along the development curve with Sonora. Ewoyaa and the adjacent area has many advantages to that project (capex, payback, IRR) but the simple fact is that they have a pre-feasibility study on their project. This includes proven and probable reserves. We have a JORC with indicated and inferred resources.

You can see from the terms thst BCN shareholders have been offer c.9% of their NPV ($1.25bn). That is probably on the low side of what the average deal for a company in their position would look like but it's much more realistic than 100-110% of our current NPV of $345m. Were we offered a similar deal tomorrow the equivalent is $30m.

This isn't me crabbing IRR or the asset. I'm just calling for some perspective. In 12-18 months time we should have a topped up resource in terms of tonnage and average grade, a boosted scoping study and maybe a PFS with our own reserves report. $345m will be long consigned to history providing Li prices hold up which they should.

A key period ahead for IRR to get this asset through to a development decision.

Deanhopeful - when would it cost nearly £400m for the lithium?

If you're thinking next week or next month then the market cap wouldn't be £100m now.

The marlet has been slow on IRR at various points over the last couple of years but it's not that wrong.

Without being privvy to managemnt plans I'd say the next 12 months will be enlightening on the lithium and value accretive. Resource upgrades, spot price trends, metallurgical improvements and maybe expressions of conventional interest from downstream financiers.

It's AIM Swest42.

Sentiment changes like the flick of a light switch as you know.

The macro picture certainly looks as positive as we could expect but you do have to wonder if the UK government interjecting on the BCN offer could be a blow for other UK listed companies looking to market assets to the countries in question.

I do look at the BCN deal and it enforces that Vince made the right decision to hold onto the lithium and expand it out instead of getting a partner early doors. Some may disagree but i genuinely feel we'll reap the rewards of that strategical move in the medium to long term.

There's enough warrants higher up to pay for KSZ drilling Zebbo.

That would be my preference rather than another placing with another batch of warrants.

Quady - stand and fight your corner by all means but again I'd probably lean away from the jibes. It won't stop them coming your way I'm sure but let them bounce off rather than getting embroiled.

Not a bad raise this week. Good work SolGold. Sets us up well for the year.

We're 1 trading session away from 1 May and as things stand there's no JV on the table for Alpala or takeover offer for the company. I can't pretend to be surprised.
Will it come in June or Q3? Who knows. The pre/post PFS conundrum for any potential suitor holds some water.

In the meantime SolGold continues with the job at hand.

TBTT - i strongly suggest you desist with your continued abuse.

I won't stand for it.

You can disagree with me all you like but that's where it stops.

None taken CovGaz.

Spot on CD.

It has been said many times on here in recent weeks that there will be a raise at some point mid year. Q2 post election was always a candidate.

CovGaz - we had results from Porvenir on 29 March. I'm sure the next ones aren't too far away.

There is plenty to talk about where SOLG is concerned but the issue is that unless it is takeover or JV related many people aren't really interested. That's a fact.

There's no bigger mouths, louder mouths etc.

Tip:

Don't automaticslly expect a rerate within the first 5 minutes of trading after a positive RNS.

This will soon have a run of consecutive 10-15% days which will be our rerating.

No, Jerry. You made a generic comment about something Addicknt and I were discussing, drawing on a contradiction that I acknowledge.

You didn't say who made those comments, just that they were made. I made it clear that I wasn't responsible.

It isn't in the slightest bit bizarre that I felt the need to clarify.

Really, if you're going to bring up old comments, you should be clear on where they originated from.

Smickster - there has been gaps in my reading of this board as my time has been spent with the twitter group (which consists of many LSE readers).

I must hsve missed Addicknt's initial reaction but i know he wasn't exactly delighted with the Franco deal when it became apparent how this alienated our major shareholders.

That's all i was getting at.

To all - my apologies. I don't intend to come on her to bicker (honestly). A line drawn on my part.

Jerry - i never said that the CGP offer wasn't going to succeed (Addicknt did). I also didn't say it was generous. I said it was fair.

I must admit to being confused by your post.

That might well be the case N2S but the permits expired in 2016 and have been under renewal ever since.

We can't really sell a concession we are waiting to reclaim the rights to.

There's also the question of what further work (if any) is required to get the assets into a state where we can command a market value for them.

I honestly think Gabon is back burner until the company is revenue generating or receives a windfall in relation to the assets in either Ghana or Cote d'Ivoire.

And one final question that is very relevant to you given your background.

When, in your opinion, would a company CEO be advised to say that their company isn't vulnerable to predation from a bigger fish?

This narrative can crush a market's view on any corporate tension which does nothing in terms of attractive new retail or institutional investment, whether it be through the primary or secondary market.

Nick and Keith are simply telling us that a zebra has stripes, not that there's a lion hiding in the bush waiting to jump it.

OK Addicknt. I'm not sure I've distorted much truth at all but apologies if I have. Not my intention.

I'm going to have my final word on this now. You have the right to reply of course and i will pass up on taking this any further.

In my view you have sought to criticise him at every available opportunity. How exactly was the Cornerstone offer so ridiculous? We offered them a 22% premium to their prevailing market price but their directors and significant shareholders wanted a c.200% premium based on previous transactions that had no relevance to Cornerstone.

That's like SolGold getting an offer of cash and shares to a value of 80p p/s on Monday and rejecting it because we want 240p because Alpala could have a $5bn NPV and Porvenir could have a $3bn NPV. We'd be laughed out of town.

That's ridiculous. We have all discussed and agreed that a low share price is the highest vulnerability to a low ball takeover offer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fair. It was fair given relative to their market position and the fact that CGP shareholders were getting access to 100% exposure to Cascabel and the largest tenure package of any company in Ecuador.

You criticised Mather for taking the Franco deal, for not publicly jumping into bed with our major shareholders (BHP particularly), for his lack of action at the 2020 AGM, for the PFS delay (justified IMO) and for a raft of other operational decisions around the lack of drilling and newsflow strategy between Q2 2019 and Q3 2020.

As i say, time now to let a sleeping dog lie. I do wish we'd be able to look forwards now to this company hopefully getting back on track and performing to all our satisfactions, whatever that may be.

I single you out for criticism Addicknt because you are the most consistent and the most vociferous. Barely do you comment without adding to the extensive record of distaste towards Mather and his decisions.

On the subject of a potential takeover, Marshall said that majors would undoubtedly be aware of us and interested in our assets. He didn't destroy the diverse book argument as he didn't comment further on the details of any potential transaction.

I'm not really playing this game again Addicknt because you've already implied it and I'm sure your pal Jerry will be along to confirm it (your collective view of my tendancies).

I'm just tired, as a long term investor, of seeing Nick criticised for everything.

We need to be looking forward to the impact of the new CEO and the handover by Marshall rather than comparing every presentation to those delivered by Nick Mather or the forensic analysis of comments made today vs those made by Nick Mather, particularly when there's a clear dislike for him.

I'm not saying he got everything right by the way and I'll happily agree with anyone that some of his addresses to existing or potential investors were hard work but he's out of the hot seat.

Let's see what Keith can oversee in the coming weeks and what the new man or woman can contribute when they arrive.

Thanks Bubble. I don't intend to step aside but my buttons do ocassionally get pressed when we see the same complaining about the same people even though they are no longer in executive management.

Nick Mather offered a huge amount to SolGold and will continue to do so.

Keith Marshall has contributed a significant amount in his 6 short months with the company.

I'm keen to look forward to the future contributions of both instead of the incessant criticism because someone didn't do something how someone with no mining or exploration experience wanted it done.

I have now watched Keith's presentation Rich3r. A solid no frills performance which is absolutely fine by me. Some useful updates to take forwards and some intriguing context to add to previous updates.

Patrm - if you're so obsessed with money and the accumulation of it then that's your prerogative.

Nick is wealthier than I'll ever be in my lifetime. That isn't the point.

What we are seeing here is the evolution of the SolGold story under the interim stewardship of Keith Marshall and frankly I'm tired of seeing criticism of previous management, management that generated significant shareholder returns over the medium term.

God forbid that one or two LSE board members join the register of a company that goes south to the tune of 50% or more.