Member Info for coldcut

That was a good point addicknt, to which might be added SOLG level of comfort with the evolving political environment in other parts of the country.

The mention of only 11 rigs on the Cascabel licence which, unless they are using that name synonomously with Alpala, which I doubt, raises the question of where is the 12th rig.

One possibility is that it has been deployed to drill the decline route, as it would be somewhat embarrassing, and potentially wasteful of a resource, to discover a blind deposit during decline development - as happened somewhat similarly during shaft sinking operations at Millenbach, Quebec many years ago. However, the planned decline portal is within the Cascabel licence and unless they are using that name synonymously with Alpala, which I doubt, then it is reasonable to assume that one of the 11 Cascable has been assigned to decline route drilling.

So where then is the 12th rig? Perhaps it has been moved to the new "drilling platform" announced a few days ago - if so where might that be - El Cielito?

The reference to illegal mining operations in El Cielto, and the intention of the Government to clamp down on such activities, might relate to the the area of the Cielto epithermal gold vein mineralisation in the Blanca licence area, NW of Cascabel, from which SOLG have reported spectacular grades up to 617 g/t (e.g. see slide 37 of the March presentation). If so, and if the drilling platform approval relates to that area, then that is very good news - and entirely in line with the "go for gold" company strategy.

http://www.lanaciontv.ec/index.php/clasificados/item/1372-gobernador-de-carchi-visito-proyecto-minero-cascabel-y-el-cielito

The Governor of the province, Edin Moreno, made a technical visit to the facilities of the Cascabel Mining Project, located in the Santa Cecilia community, Lita parish, Imbabura province, with the purpose of strengthening the dialogue, knowing the technical, social and environmental projects that are developed, also agreed to one of the drilling platforms, which has been complying with the company SolGold. (via Google translate)

Note reference to approval of a drilling platform - perhaps one of the step out scout drilling sites? Where not stated but possibly in El Cielito, as the article focuses largely on illegal mining operations in that area.

interesting to note that on L2, the asking price for the stack of 100,000 blocks has been raised from 38.5 to 39.10, with the first of the 250,000 stack now at an ask of 44.00. If nothing else, that slight lift in the asking price of the "blocking" stacks has given some headroom for the SP to creep up to the current levels.

I have no doubts or reservations about the commendable approach that SOLG is taking towards its social and environmental responsibilities. I am a geologist, with a substantial shareholding in this company acquired over a number of years, and for me there are always two major risks in exploration - geology; and political which includes anti-mining activism. I forwarded the referendum information as news which be of interest to other investors.

Yes, a court did indeed stop the referendum but, as the blogspot notes, that decision has been over-ruled by the Referendum Commission which ordered that the referendum is to proceed on March 24.

https://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2019/03/ecuador-giron-mining-referendum-soap.html

This blog site notes that a local referendum to be held on March 24th 2019 will almost certainly record an overwhelming vote against the development of the Loga Larma mine development in the Girón canton of southern Ecuador. The article goes on to note that should that be the outcome, the result could empower anti-mining activism throughout Ecuador - as Cornerstone experienced at first hand at the PDAC recently.

While primarily focussed upon Cornerstone, although SolGold is mentioned also, two posts made on CEO.ca this morning note environmental, social and cultural objections to Cornerstone’s exploration activities in Ecuador, as follows:
• @pob: “30 Ecuadorian Organizations Write Open Letter to Cornerstone Capital Resources to Demand they Abandon their Activities and Leave their Communities” ; and provided this link https://miningwatch.ca/news/2019/3/1/30-ecuadorian-organizations-write-open-letter-cornerstone-capital-resources-demand.
• @gneiss_guy (lovely pun!), who noted that the Mining Watch Canada group took their demonstration to the PDAC where they lodged a letter of objection at the Cornerstone booth: https://miningwatch.ca/news/2019/3/3/canadian-and-international-organizations-express-support-30-organizations-resisting
While these objections focus on Cornerstone’s exploration activities on a number of their licence holdings, SolGold gets dragged into it towards the end of the article at the first link above, where the objectors note as follows:
“In the province of Loja, together with the company SolGold, Cornerstone is intervening in the Caña Brava concession in the Loja canton, Gualel parish, in an area of 1,150 hectares, where it currently carries out advanced exploration activities. Likewise, in association with that same company, Cornerstone conducts initial exploration in the Tioloma project, in an area of 4,950 hectares. Similarly, it carries out advanced exploration in the Bramaderos concession in the Paltas canton [which extends] over an area of 4,948 hectares.
In this province, the Fierrourco mountain range is an area of páramos where abundant water flows feed four watersheds in southern Ecuador. This is why it is considered a precious water source. If it were to be affected it would produce an environmental catastrophe which would have an impact on numerous other water sources which are depended on for human consumption and irrigation. It would also destroy the cultivation areas that give life to the communities, affecting the “Páramo Forest”, the “Andean Brow”, and the lagoons like the one in Siriguiña…”
I cannot help but wonder if this has anything to do with the adverse press coverage noted on this BB last week, and the response received by mistermeeister from Anna Legge on 25-2-2019: “We provided a response to the Comptrollers report over the New Year as the information they have reported is completely wrong. We are currently waiting on a response from them.“
One can only presume that Newcrest were well aware of these objections when they announced very recently that they had increased their stake in Cornerstone.

Indeed we may be seeing accumulation through suppression of the share price by offers which will prove to be of no more substance than a mirage in the desert.

The following post on ceo.ca notes that BHP had bought 2.596M SOLG shares privately at an average price of C$0.3888 up to 15-1-2019: https://ceo.ca/api/sedi?insider=&symbol=SOLG&date=&transaction=&amount=&undefined[company_symbol]=SOLG

And is it just no more than coincidence that BHP still haven't taken up their option to nominate a Director to the SOLG Board?

BF21 [17:13]. In response to your query I'm afraid I can only offer more guesswork as I'm not a mine engineer. The permeability of the oxidised zone is whatever it is and unlikely to be very variable over the pit area and its surrounds. I've no reason to doubt that the stability characteristics of such material, under wet and dry conditions, would have been considered in designing the pit, particularly the angle of the pit wall slopes, haul ways and so on. It could be that the pit wall slope angles may need to be reduced, easily done in principle by stripping back the margins of the pits – but at a cost and time delay. But I have no idea how HUM could plan for potentially adverse stability conditions resulting from concealed/unknown artisanal workings, if such are present in the pit area and planned extensions, as their existence would only come to light as the pit is excavated.

All in all, we need the company to provide definitive information not only on the precise nature of the pit wall instability problem, and what is being done to resolve the matter, but also on a range of other matters such as current production, cash flow, Bunker Hill and especially drilling results which, if good, could help to alleviate the pall of gloom which has settled over the company since their last RNS. One straw in the wind is that despite a gradual decline in SP after recovery from the price crash, it has held up remarkably well at around the 17.5 - 18p bid level, despite variable but on some days, high volumes of sustained selling over the last few weeks. That indicates to me that some investor(s) or organisation(s) is/are presently accumulating HUM shares presumably indicating their confidence in the future of the company. A bit of candour on the part of the company would not go amiss.

GoldenBull (14:44). In response to your query concerning pit wall instability, my guess, and that's all it is as we have no geological or other technical information, is that it might reflect a permeability issue. It is reasonable to suspect that there may well be a strong permeability contrast between what is probably highly permeable, near surface oxidised material and the underlying, relatively impermeable unoxidised bedrock. Water would accumulate very rapidly in the permeable material and if of sufficient volume and pressure, burst through at or just above the permeability boundary contrast.

There are many factors which will determine permeability, but one which might have considerably enhanced permeability in the oxidised zone is the depth, extent and interconnectivity of any artisanal workings through which HUM might be mining at present. Such open voids could store very large volumes of water with consequential increasing pressure with depth - and potential for rupture of pit wall(s) at permeability boundaries or where pitwalls between unknown/concealed artisanal workings and the open pit/haulway are very thin.

I have no idea if and how extensive such workings are within the pit area presently being mined by HUM, and it is possible that HUM may not be aware of their extent either or have mapped them, or found it practicable and/or safe for HUM staff to have mapped such workings in sufficient detail to accommodate them within slope stability/mine engineering studies.

This article does not make for pleasant reading and one can only wonder how management became involved with this enterprise in the first place - maybe through members of the Board playing polo with Genovese?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-11-12/the-epa-can-t-wait-to-reopen-the-mine-that-poisoned-north-idaho?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=181115&utm_campaign=climatechanged

NM did indeed say "vulnerable" and revised MRE in November - twice, to be sure, to be sure. I also noted $45M cash remaining but, most intriguingly, only 11 rigs on the Cascabel tenement in August (slide 20).

So where is the 12th rig? Has it been moved to a tenement held by one of the other SolGold subsidiaries so that it no longer appears on the Cascabel rig count or ENSA accounts? If so, and in keeping with the "going for gold" strategy and using gold to bank roll development of Alpala, then it may well have been moved to one of the epithermal gold targets, of which Blanca Nieves is the most outstanding and the closest to Cascabel.

For a flavour of how lucrative one of those types of deposits could be, much lower cost to develop and very low AISC, its worth listening to the Fruta del Norte presentation by Lundin Gold which followed immediately after Nick Mather. Just some thoughts, DYOR etc.

A fair point Darola, although HUM is an hybrid enterprise, in part production and in part exploration (resource to reserve infill drilling; Cora stake), which brings other potential SP catalysts into play. Other potential drivers could arise through positive outcomes for the advancement of Dugbe (e.g. JV, disposal etc.) and I remain curious about, and keep an open mind on why the Board chose to invest in Bunker Hill. Perhaps they want a source of silver to produce silver coins to market alongside their gold coins?

Bunker Hill are presenting at the invitation only "Precious Metals Summit" in Beaver Creek, Colorado at 16:30 (Mountain Time = GMT - 7 hours) on September 21 : http://www.precioussummit.com/event/2018-summit-colorado/?section=home
A live webcast facility is included (http://www.gowebcasting.com/conferences/2018/09/20/precious-metals-summit/day/2) and although HUM is not listed, hopefully the BH presentation might shed some light on the HUM-BH relationship and proposed developments. Could be worth staying up to watch.