Member Info for Bozi

I don't think projects get abandoned as such. I think they just remain in perennial development and then the focus of the company quietly switches somewhere else.

There's loads of stuff on mines in various places being abandoned later in the production cycle.

Despite my protestations concerning SOLG I'd be surprised if Cascabel was abandoned. It would surely be kept simmering until copper prices made the mining case attractive. That has always been the premise in the marketing materials (the copper production and future deficit graph).

One thing is for sure where Cascabel is concerned. They need to get the mine plan right. That means stuff that's much too technical for me, but it's stuff like the shape and orientation of the deposit being amenable to access that high grade core in the early years.

One of the reasons I don't want to be kept in the dark as to future plans.

Correct DM. We can assume there would be an uplift to IRR from a mine plan optimisation but it boils back to what I'm saying. It would be for a smaller mine.

So we end up in a situation where a tier 1 deposit could end up not being a tier 1 mine because the cut-off increases and a lot of the stuff that met the original MRE cut-off fails to meet a DFS cut-off.

There's another side to the equation basically.

No Fort.

5-7p gives is £150-200m for Cascabel.

That doesn't represent Cascabel as we knew it a couple of years ago but it is where we're heading strategy wise now.

Is it inconceivable that we're presented with a mine plan that consists of lower capex but also less throughput? That seems to be what Scott is suggesting and to my mind, that could put us in NPV territory of £1.5-2bn.

A valuation of 10% of NPV right now doesn't feel unrealistic to me.

There's also the whole dynamic of being seen to achieve a good result. If we saw the shares trade towards the level I mentioned, Scott and Sangha would be regarded as heroes if they subsequently sold the lot for 35p. Never disregard the optics.

I know it doesn't suit the bull case, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it play out.

If we're valuing SOLG on a full Cascabel resource basis then my valuation is well out. However, our direction of travel seems to be away from this.

My concern Add is that we're heading from being a company with a large deposit to one with a small reserve and larger resource that won't become a factor until the latter stages of development or construction.

Obviously I could well be wrong but I feel that undeveloped lbs and oz will fetch a lot less than were they incorporated into some sort of development plan.

I suppose I'm saying is it's the trade off for the smaller footprint, reduced Capex etc.

Another way of looking at it is to ask ourselves why were only showing a plan for a portion of the asset if we have no intention of building it ourselves? The only answer I can reach is that the intention has become about extracting a much as the high grade core as we can in the early years and that will surely mean that a lot of the lower grade resource is going to be wasted or left unmined as it becomes economically unfeasible to do so.

I don't see the point in removing Scott. We can't remove Mather, Sangha, Irwin, CGP, Maxit etc and they have all agreed Scott is their proxy. If shareholders registered a rebel vote against Scott they'd only appoint a replacement and continue with the same plan.

Hard to argue Orthern.

As much as I hate to say this being a holder of the shares I'm starting to think 5-7p is fair value for the stock.

I do also buy the argument that we don't really want fresh management post an AGM because a revolving door at the top level creates vulnerability and delays while business strategy is reviewed and amended.

I'll therefore be voting for Scott. That's not to say I approve of the job he has done to date or am hopeful of the one he will do in the next 12 months, but he probably gives us the best chance of protecting our investment, and that's clearly where folks like DBW and TheItalian are coming from too. It makes sense.

But that's exactly what he's going to do Fort, and despite the fighting talk, there's nothing you or I can do about it.

Add - there were plenty calling for a strategic review of SOLG before the merger with CGP was announced so personally I'm not convinced it's fair to now label it as naivety, unless it comes with an admission that those calls were the same.

Shippy - why is the SP being manipulated? I can't see that it is.

Don't fall for BoD BS as a means to placate. We're down here for good reason and that won't change until management do something about it.

Stop fibbing tradedesk.

Their potential is for tens of thousands of ounces - the RNS is clear on this. Not worth relocating for.

The Zim assets are small fry though and they're still only options over the claims.

They aren't going to make a significant company but they will allow the story to continue.

The KCB is where its at and even then we may simply have the wrong ground.

It's all in the half year update. Just needs some reading between the lines.

1H 2023 Financial Summary

Revenues for the first half of the year are expected to be $6.4m (2022 H1 $9.8m), with the average realised oil price per barrel from Egypt achieved of approximately $78 (2022 H1 $105). Our cash balance as at 30 June was approximately $0.55m (2022: $3.8m) and whilst cash collections in the period remained strong at $7m (2022 H1 $8.7m), the continued impact of the macro-economic challenges affecting the Egyptian economy has resulted in increasing difficulty and foreign exchange cost to repatriate funds from our Egyptian operations. Although we have received USD payments in H1 and successfully repatriated funds directly, we have also incurred significant additional foreign exchange costs when translating EGP to USD for working capital needs. Notwithstanding these short-term challenges due to reduced USD liquidity in Egypt, we continue to manage our working capital position across the group.

Suspect we know what is about to happen here.

Bit of egg on your face Larkers...

It won't be the floor in this case tradedesk, IMO at least. That said, I can see why you and LegalWolf are forcing this play.

The following from F79 yesterday sums it up.

"In short I personally think KAV are probably valued about right somewhere between current price and the placing price. I'd struggle to put a case across that they should be valued north of the placing price ATM.

Therefore the key now for me is really what KAV can prove up asset wise with the exploration from the cash injection. If they want a value above the placing price then the market will likely need to see more evidence from the assets. This is what the market price and action is telling me."

Purebond stand to be down on their investment from day 1. They'll join c.90% of the KAV register in having their wealth eroded by the management of this company.

Looks like the fairies are building up.

Shall we get a thousand oompa loompas instead?

I believe it was in anticipation of positive flow rest results from Royston, hubenstein.

Craigb - before today? Can't agree there. Today IMO marks a significant step in proving that valuation cheap in time though.

In a bull market I think we'd be paid ahead of time but right now I think market wants to see cash in the bank and operational progress.

We're half way there.

Virtually FA Red 😭

Great news this morning, but let's be honest we're valued at £160m and we're off the back of the disappointment at Royston.

Some posters have set out exactly what the plan should be for the next 12 months and during that time we'll be able to watch the balance sheet strengthen week on week.

The fundamentals are decent just on Cascadura and Coho alone but this isn't really a market where we as investors get paid in advance. That is all we're seeing right now IMO but the time will come where we're booting off cash and the valuation looks low, a bit like Rockrose did back in the day.

Completely as expected.

Scott will get both barrels if he compares his tenure with that of previous regimes.

Coming up for 12 months and a licence renewal and EA is all that has been delivered.

Fair enough Highflyigman.

Add - I was expressing relatively to be fair. The general point is fair I think.

Highflyigman, just to pick up on your earlier post - what makes you so relaxed about SOLG?

I think the analysts may be missing a trick here.

Alpala is often lauded as the best discovery in a decade. Yes, a decade. Hardly 50 years or even a century.

My concern is that the majors look elsewhere at the lower hanging fruit. We saw an indication of this with BHP and Oz Minerals. We've had to put up with plenty of diatribe from certain posters over the year claiming that SOLG was "in their crosshairs."

My suspicion, in light of the fact that SOLG are trying to rework the PFS assumptions into a more optimal mine plan, is that we'll continue to be overlooked. We know that Ecuador has been trying to edge towards being a state happy to rely on the revenues mining will bring, but it feels like a house of cards where one bad move can bring down the whole shabang.

I believe our position is a bit more perilous so it was interesting to hear Bob flag this to Shippy. Yes, the big boys stakes exploration ground but they simply had to in order to claim a slice of a free pie. In reality they'll be operating a small office with half a dozen geologists and a couple of pickups. Hardly going to be costing them the earth should the position change.

Whilst SOLG continues to obfuscate and dither I'm afraid I can't relax. I'm sick of people saying what they need to in order to get the top positions and it's about time someone delivered for SolGold.