Member Info for KB007

It would be a big hit for Cornerstone to take to raise funds via ENSA as if they go just 0.01% below the 10% it would result in SOLG being able to pick up the remaining 9.99% of ENSA from the Cornerstone holding for a pittance of a price: $3.5m

Not Less are the key words here

No MiningPig,

They have 15% share of ENSA which means their costs are 15% to development.

I believe you are confusing the 10% with cut off for the dilution of ENSA

Should CGP dilute ENSA (sell back a percentage to SOLG as they have first refusal rights) this would enable SOLG to allocate CGP's remaining holding in ENSA (should it dilute to below 10%) to a NSR which they could then buy back for $3.5m.

Again it is in the term sheet

Thank you for the post Pinot

MiningPig,

Page 15 of the presentation Pinot posted has a short synopsis

$2.7 Billion would be SOLG's share of the development costs (85%) the other 15% would be CGP (circa $468m) for the whole ENSA

https://sedar.com/FindCompanyDocuments.do

Search for Solgold, date 13 July 2017 - 13 July 2017

The Term Sheet is the document sized at 7464 K

Footnote,

If you bypass the tirade I had with a disgruntled investor back to first thing this morning then I suggest you read my posts of 09:08 and 09:44 which was a cut and paste of the term sheet

I shall correct your mistakes since some dipwit put me in a bad mood.

1. Cornerstone must pay their share of 'exploration' costs up to Bankable Feasibility from the income stream when and only when production begins!
2. Cornerstone have to contribute to the development of the mine (circa $468m) to get the mine to production which will in turn pay off the aforementioned 'exploration' costs.
3. Details are in the Term Sheet filed on Sedar in July 2017 and signed February 2014.
4. The term sheet refers specifically to SOLG covering costs to Feasibility and not to production.
5. SOLG has the NSR with Franco-Nevada to cover the remaining costs to bring to Feasibility.
6. Cornerstone 'MUST" repeat "MUST" contribute to development costs going forward from the date of the Bankable Feasibility.

Please explain how a mine can be built without the need for any company to foot the bill prior to the build other than to raise finance prior?

They are in the Term Sheet MiningPig

PS

it says something when Zoros remains unfiltered

taken your advice and filtered.... doom and gloom I'm done with !

You are too argumentative for me so do one !

Someone asked

GGP grades up to 13g/t

OMI grades up to 219g/t

Even SOLG samples at Blanca 1 are massive with quartz veins averaging 81g/t

Initially I meant

You say tomatoes and I say potatoes

Additionally, GGP had low grades initially hence why Newmont walked, but their grades built up over time

OMI has fantastic gold grades and over 200 square km and long strike lengths and I'm confident in them just as much as I was with SOLG

I hold a chunk of GGP and I see better grades with OMI ... if you recall Newmont walked away from GGP and in turn invested in OMI on the premise their debt was handled which was resolved and the Anza grades being better..

Newmont hasn't walked from OMI and as such it speaks volumes

No comment from Earthling?

There will be tears of blood no doubt ! :)

OMI has just completed their stage 1 funding from Newmont.

Newmont has committed to spending a further $4m to progress the Anza prospect which apparently has greater grade expectations than GGP.

Steal at the moment if compared to GGP with a Market Cap of only £11m and 160m shares in issue, has rallied recently from lows of 2p

DYOR

As a further thought 90% of their ENSA returns go to SOLG once production starts until their $52m in costs is repaid to SOLG so cannot see any hope of any royalty deals on the back of ENSA

DD12

It is a possibility but will the likes of Franco-Nevada offer a NSR on such a low holding of 15% ??? Doubt it very much.

Are CGP shareholders going to be happy with a massive cash raise and dilution to the company ??? Doubt it very much.

Sticky position for CGP which beggars belief why they are against the TO !!

Still, bad management make bad decisions.