Member Info for Bozi

RichBetter - those problems were with protestor backed by illegal miners who weren't happy at all the companies being awarded licences in areas they were plundering.

The constitutional court quickly set the prevent for challenge but it didn't stop investors taking flight in the meantime, such was the uncertainty.

It also doesn't detail and restrictions in terms of spend, which suggests it can be used for any work streams associated with the project.

Lunch - the RNS could certainly be clearer but the following paragraph implies that it is for Cascabel only.

"The Board of Directors of SolGold (LSE & TSX: SOLG) is pleased to announce that SolGold has entered into a binding agreement with Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd ("Osisko") for a US$50 million royalty financing ("Royalty Financing") with reference to the Company's Cascabel copper-gold project in northern Ecuador."

If it wasn't just for Cascabel then the part of the sentence after 'with reference' is would include mention of Porvenir and/or the high priority exploration portfolio.

If we're reading that paragraph literally and at face value then I'd agree with Quady.

I don't disagree with any of that Monte at all. I've given SOLG more rope than most and they've taken more than a few yards.

That's why I say we should look at a deal for Cascabel. Pass it on to someone who can develop it at a pace that it's ready for 2029/2030 and ready to help Ecuador out of economic destitution.

How I'd do this? Well if I was working on Citi's corporate transactions desk I'd be putting an ultimatum out to BHP, Newcrest and any other company that has expressed an interest to date.

You give them 28 days to submit their proposal in full.

If we don't have anything that works for the company at that point then focus turns to selling 80-100% of the Cascabel project. Same process.

If nothing materialises by that point then we'd be in for a rocky ride in early 2023.

Addicknt @10:23 - that's just about the crux of it.

The lie of the land as I see it is that it's PIs and the odd II like Berry St Capital who are baying for a sale/exit.

With CGP, this is the one reason that stirs my resentment of the merger. CGP held a minority 21% direct and indirect stake in Cascabel and yet now they have a big say in the future of SolGold. Those who want the same as them will be chuffed at the prospect I'm sure but for those of us that don't, it stinks to high heaven.

We've got a tier 1 copper gold porphyry deposit and everything is pointing to a huge copper supply deficit from 2028 onwards which will only grow. Yet people want to bail now.

It hasn't been the easiest hold, far from it, but if you're an investor that isn't looking to draw down and close their book in the next 6 months then it doesn't make any sense at all.

The right choice is to stay in the game, get a board of directors and management together that can stabilise the company and set it up for the next 10 years. I'd then be reviewing interest for Cascabel only and if someone wants to give us a free carry (unlikely) then look at that.

Investors who want out can take their leave and their loot and those who are invested for the copper story of the next 10 or 20 years can roll the dice at Porvenir and around Ecuador with SOLGs exploration blueprint.

Redknight -you're so thin-skinned for a fella who has done a lot and been through a lot (from what you have said before).

You come at me telling me I'm talking rubbish for giving my opinion to another poster, before

1.) Making a statement that you can't verify and treating it as fact
2.) Completely misunderstanding a point I'd made on a separate thread and again jumping on me.

Instead of bringing the aggression and hiding behind the filter when all i suggested was you have a relaxing rest of your weekend, how about ask someone to explain their thinking?

It's clear to all that you hold yourself in high esteem but you need to stop treating me like I'm something you've trodden in because i won't accept that, and, before you say anything, this isn't the first time you've alluded to your own superiority. It's a horrible horrible look.

Redknight

A fella who worked for a major in senior positions for over half of his career doesn't just barricade his bridges and pulls in a completely different direction. At the very least, he was placeholding, ensuring SOLG didn't get above his station.

Ask yourself why his tenure lasted 11 months.
Ask yourself why he bought no stock.
Ask yourself why he suspended all regional drilling and never resumed it.
Ask yourself why we delayed raising finance until the time that markets hadd started to slide and we were competing with other juniors looking to get cashed up.

Impressions can be misleading. His CV clearly did a lot of heavy lifting and Nick Mather took it on trust that he was fully geared to pushing Solgold forwards. This after a prolonged recruitment process, that, for all we know, may have revolved around more than 1 candidate and more than 1 job offer.

"0.75/0.8% is WORSE terms..."

Redknight - are you thick or are you just slowing down? I was clearly talking about the FNV deal.

I seriously can't believe you've had the career you have with those reading and comprehension skills.

Go and watch Matt Han**** eating kangaroo c*ck with Mrs Redknight and come back on Monday for crying out loud.

Im posting unsubstantiated rubbish Redknight?

What is factual about this

"The strategic review is a smokescreen for a sale of SOLG or Cascabel.."

You're showing yourself up now...

I think a decision should have been made 2-3 months ago to sacrifice one asset to develop the other.

Whichever way round that would have been would depend on what interest there is and at what level.

After all, if we're trying to entice BHP into making a move, surely the play should be to actively market one of our top 2 assets and potentially the flagship one?

I do think SolGold can have a crack at Porvenir with the proceeds from Cascabel, assuming it's going to be realistic to bring the infrastructure up to scratch.

Instead we have two assets and are moving painfully to progress both.

Labour could teach Solgold a thing or two about budgetary responsibility after our funding farce in 2022.

In fact, statistics are showing they could probably teach the tories a thing or two too. A conversation for another day in early 2025 though, by which time I'm sure you'll be well behind Tice and ReFash -if you aren't already that is...;-)

You don't need to tell me that RichBetter. But Marshall initiated the stripped down version, rightly or wrongly.

Plenty have been lauding Cazzubbo as a BHP stooge in recent days. I called it at the time he was appointed but was told i was being daft.

I can't do anything but call things as i see them when i see them.

I'm invested by the way but nice dig. Don't let that mask slip. ;-)

Those licence blocks Fort, whilst in demand, won't carry much value until a resource is declared in line with JORC requirements.

So we'd have to sell Cascabel or Porvenir and use one to fund the other and the remaining folio.

RichBetter - I might have this wrong but I think you might have the wrong end of the stick.

Had we gone lock stock with the 100% of the reserve, i.e. full development, then the capex would have been $5bn+ for ultimately very little improvement in economic output. Totally unrealistic.

Plus, why would you pay an extra $2bn up front to develop it if it isn't going to yield anything extra?

My interpretation of the PFS optimisation (and this may well be me with the wrong end of the stick) is that reserve usage would start to be built back up and additional capex phased into the plan, drawn from phase 1 revenues. So, back towards a multi-generational life of mine but with a more gradual phased approach and ultimately slower ramp up.

Also, it was Keith M who advocated that approach just before the initial PFS under Mather was going to drop, hence the initial delay whilst they went back to the drawing board, but I do get why you think Cazzubbo did this intentionally for BHPs benefit. Just not sure I agree.

Addicknt - I feel better now than I did in August and September (I couldn't have felt much worse and I think that came across) but my thoughts are still conflicting.

I'd try and sum it up like this:

Cards on the table, the options right now as they appear today are:

1) Short term transaction falling out of the strategic review, as DGR says, to "restore" value for SOLG shareholders.

This language is very deliberate IMO. The strategic review and short term deal puts us back to 30-45p IMO. I have the rationale for this in a post yesterday so won't labour the point.

2.) Medium term value creation. This probably pushes us out to 2025/26, potentially the early ounces and pounds of Tandyama America. Much more risk involved if we assume the wider markets will be a write off in 2023/24. I don't think you could be fooled for thinking that a DFS doesn't get seen until late 23/early 24 and financing would very likely have to wait until markets start to recover.

3) long term value creation - simply holding on. Fixing the boardroom, meeting our milestones, further enhancing the opportunity in Ecuador working with the government in office. Creating a settled company that can see true value creation ahead, wait for it and execute to obtain it.

My confliction comes from the apparant thinking from some that we can achieve the value creation from 3) in a timeframe associated with 1). By the very nature of each outcome, you can see that risk grows with each one and that factor alone is going to place a ceiling on what we can achieve.

I'm resigned to somethinf barely acceptable will materialise from the strategic review and we'll all move on, some happier than others. We'll then find out closer to 2030 whether our collective decision to lobby the company so forcefully now will be the right one. Some won't care and that's fair enough, but I do think they'd be hard pushed to find another opportunity like Cascabel and Ecuador in the resource space anyway.

Mathers - of course the original offer for Cornerstone was a Mather initiative but do you not remember the disdain that CGP shareholders had for the terms and for the charade with the French translator? It was a bit of a farce if we're being honest with ourselves.

There has obviously been some mediation between all parties at SOLG and CGP and that much was RNSd last year. But as Better Rich points out, it wouldn't have been a deal struck up overnight. There would have been a case of all compromising and that would have taken some soul searching. DC would have played a part.

RichBetter - I actually don't disagree with much of that, until the last bit anyway. Cash is an ongoing issue now and in my view, SOLG needs to use a hybrid solution. That hasn't really been an option in recent weeks but it should have been earlier in the year when the SP was close to 40p and investors were awake to this at the time.

The problem with just relying on royalty is that it's eroding away at the profitability of the project it's secured against and the size and scale of Cascabel means that the streamer is getting an even better deal. Look at FNV with their 1% of future profits. If Cascabel needs total EBITDA over LOM of £10bn for them to get their capital back. I'm sure the base case assumptions are 1.5-2x that and if our basket prices move higher again there's really no ceiling on how much they'll receive back. I don't think it's inconceivable they see £400-600m. So the point I want to make, is given the sheer size of Cascabel, why 0.75 or 0.8% wasn't a fairer deal?

If for example, we do a PEA on Porvenir and it shows a smaller tonnage project (as we know) but with an IRR of 30-35% then I think there's more scope for a royalty deal or two, but with Cascabel a shade under 20% post tax we do have to be very careful.

Completely agree about what SOLG have created for BHP in Ecuador. Have made the same point before.

I'm aware of just how long the merger took to achieve ;-). It wasn't straightforward given the years of acrimony and whilst Darryl. Might not have been the top dog to many, I do respect him for his role in getting that done.

BHP always has a say. They're awash with cash. They can compete and better anyone. It's in their hands, but I do think that if SOLG goes too heavy on royalty at Cascabel they won't just force BHP to step aside bit everyone else too.

RichBetter - it's hard to say with certainty given the strategic review taking place rignt now. I think all options and proposals have to be considered.

I'm not against anything. I would have a preference for the company still having control of it's assets coming through the other side of the forecasted downturn because that is when copper prices will start to bite as you say and that is when SolGold will be at it's most valuable. It'll be transformed from where we are now at 18p/£420m anyway and there will be a buegeoning spot price to support it.

However, if we have to move Cascabel on in 2023 and there's both a decent offer on the table and a way to mitigate an excessive tax take then it's going to be worth looking at. I think there's some merit in sellimg Cascabel off, letting an acquirer buy back as much of the royalty deals as they can. SOLG then starts developing Porvenir and exploring the regionals with half the loot (other half back to shareholders via a special dividend.

That should give holders a nice cash kicker and it should provide some sort of exit from the stock for those who want it.

I'd then be looking to Porvenir as an asset where SOLG can become a producer in their own right. It makes much more sense than Cascabel. The regional work would involve capitalising the 4 subsidiaries and setting them to task to find the nest top assets.

Covgaz - he's just asked if BHP are a "cornered rat". Yet you like that analysis?

You and 13 others. It's ridiculous. Cornered rat my hole.

It's going to be pretty interesting to see the reaction on this board if the strategic review doesn't yield the outcome plenty on here want, and with SolGold hiving off future profits in favour of cash up front, it's more likely SOLG will be the cornered rat, as we have been for much of this calendar year. Only next time we'll end up flogging a stake in Cascabel to someone like Mitsui for much less than fair value.

There's not much thought going on in terms of what impacts our actions now can have on our future outcome. Everyone just seems to think it'll be an easy sell, as they have for the last 5 years. Well we're still here, unsold and propping ourselves up with deals that have prompted war across the boardroom table.

That isn't something to crow about.

Do you mean the slug in the room NoviceHunter?