Member Info for LunchMoney

As you say Colonel, the pipeline was a surprise given good quality roads from Alpala to ports.

Given the environmental pressure elsewhere, not sure 180Km of digging across the country sounds a great idea! But I guess it would create jobs as well as reducing transport emmissions / costs.

If it leads to the acceleration of Ecuador as a 'mining nation' then fantastic - hopefully they extend it a bit next door to Rio Amarillo!

Interesting proposed pipeline from Cascabel to ports. Minimising the environmental impact (and presumably cost?) of trucks transporting concentrate for export.

This got me thinking of the plans for processing at Alpala. Keith talked about the high recovery and clean concentrate. Would the basic processing ('concentrating') take place at Alpala, and the (unseparated) concentrate is then sent to port for overseas smelting?

Wasn't there a suggestion that further separation (and maybe even smelting / refining) could take place at Alpala? Something which would be 'value-add' for Ecuador instead of just exporting raw materials?

A clean concentrate presumably prevents the need, and cost, of further separation. Thereby reducing Capex. I guess further separation and smelting is something for when Ecuador's metals industries mature. But I can see this being a key consideration of development as Govt look to maximise the revenue that Ecuador retain.

Ortherncopper - agree to setting realistic expectations (which is what 2021 strategy and regional exploration plans were based on).

But why, after recently confirming Rio Amarillo was due to be drilled in H1, is this now expected in "late 2021 or early 2022"?
I can only assume the local community is very active against drilling. Are SOLG waiting for community relationships to be improved through Co. outreach, or influence from new Govt etc?

Disappointing Rio timelines already slipping.

Thank you for your valuable contribution as usual Redknight.

I got excited reading the updated Corporate Investor slides and I was already familiar with the potential!! Some very good tweaks that really sell the huge opportunity here. No wonder there has been institutional buying.

2021 looking very positive...

Hi DBW. The Tandayama-America hole 1&2 results could be a big reason for the PFS 'progress update' that posters are suggesting will arrive soon.

I can't recall if Moran is also being drilled yet, but with T-A, Aguinaga and Moran there is plenty of upside for the Cascabel PFS. In addition to any optimisation of mine design etc.

Many thanks for Rio water insight Red. (Hope the golf was good after the 3 month hiatus).

BN.c - I agree still Q2 2021. I just didn't think the "following an assessment..." bit was needed in the recent RNS given the date remains the same. It gives the impression something has changed (maybe it has given RK's comments re: another miner having difficulties with equipment in the area?). Nonetheless, good to see SOLG has workarounds to prevent delays to drilling Rio.

Best wishes.

(Apols for double-post issues)

Hi RICH3R. 'Hopefully' not long to find out :)

My own guess is this relates to water permitting. Particularly given this was the final item before Sharug drilling could commence.

But why relate this to timing of election? If just a slow admin process why not try to accelerate before the election?
Unless assessment of permits such as this are on hold until the election run-off is complete (i.e. a temporary freeze on some bureaucracy until new govt is formed; I'm not close to Ecuadorian politics and whether current Govt operates as usual until run-off is complete, or whether there are restrictions on powers).

Looking forward to getting drills into Rio Amarillo. What a tranformational year 2021 could be.

Hi RICH3R. 'Hopefully' not long to find out :)

My own guess is this relates to water permitting. Particularly given this was the final item before Sharug drilling could commence.

But why relate this to timing of election? If just a slow admin process why not try to accelerate before the election?
Unless assessment of permits such as this are on hold until the election run-off is complete (i.e. a temporary freeze on some bureaucracy until new govt is formed; I'm not close to Ecuadorian politics and whether current Govt operates as usual until run-off is complete, or whether there are restrictions on powers).

Looking forward to getting drills into Rio Amarillo. What a tranformational year 2021 could be.

Hi Red.

What was your take on the "following an assessment post the Ecuador presidential elections" statement for Rio?

I don't see why this was added for Rio, but not (in general) other planned regional drilling?

Why not just leave the intentions as "Drilling is planned for commencement in Q2 2021" , as per 3-Feb-21 Regional update?

Colonel, I too found the 'hold' on drilling Rio Amarillo (Varela Target) quite cryptic...
"Drilling is planned for commencement in Q2 2021 following an assessment post the Ecuador presidential elections".

Is this due to:
- genuine election uncertainty (but would either candidate make a material difference to SOLG's initial drilling approach?)
- strategic reasons, i.e JV on this or other regionals
- outstanding water permits or other permits (I think they already have permits for scout drilling)
- something else?

A really promising Regional RNS today. Hopefully the market warms to this, especially Porvenir Hole 7, in due course.

Like most KAT RNSs, a masterful blend of patronisation / arrogance / ambiguity.

More waiting and no indication of timescales / expectations. Shares staying in the bottom drawer.

This highlights one of the 'big unknowns' for me - how the PFS will 'join up' any shallow deposits scattered around Alpala/Cascabel.
I presume cost-prohibitive to do each as a shallow open pit? Plus those sites further afield wouldn't be close enough to extend an initial open pit into the block cave to Alpala core.

Too many open questions. I will leave for the experts to consider and optimise in the PFS.

Best wishes.

Apols, typo in my previous message, should be "c870m to c1194m".

i.e. those grades are from a depth of c870m to 1096m.

Quady - "I just went for the famous hole file, high grade copper and gold at 324 meters, I know there are more.
https://www.investegate.co.uk/solgold-plc/rns/further-high-grade-assay-results-hole-5-alpala/201402270814130763B/"

NOT TRUE - this is a 324m length FROM c870m! Much further down.

Thanks Quady. I didn't want to appear overly negative; I'm keeping an open mind and like you taking a long-term view.

It could be that the more collaborative relationship with CGP now means the opportunity to progress other encouraging sites at Alpala/Cascabel at pace (now the CGP buy-out / freeze-out approach has been dropped).

Also PFS re-plan may be a consequence of a more robust and de-risked approach to mine design, with the right skilled people advising and monitoring.

I'm still a bit peeved at the late U-turn, and the extended PFS deadline MAY indicate more challenges than SOLG are letting on. However with a glass-half-full view I'll focus on the potential to accelerate and improve the mine financials whilst lowering risk.

Enough waffling from me. Hopefully some Regional news to discuss soon; will make a nice change!

Sorry Quady, I appreciate all views here, but is your statement just an opinion, or backed-up by data released by SOLG:
"We have loads of gold and copper near surface, which we can mine early."

I seem to recall the Cu/Au grades in first 500m-600m at Alpala were quite low. Are you referring to other sites within Cascabel, that could be brought into production earlier? E.g. Tandayama-America 'high-quality problem' from 17th Dec 2020 RNS?

I agree that only the PFS (or further Alpala updates) will make it clear.

Hi redknight1.

You are indeed correct when you say "...the Graph on page 409, it actually shows the breakeven on cashflow in year 8 after PRODUCTION...".

I was surprised to see cumulative cashflows only turning positive in the 8th year after production commences, so 13 years from project commencent. Particularly given this is for the 50 Mt/a 'FAST' Ramp-up scenario.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with the 'less than 4 year payback' statements we're read lots about. Scratching my head to be honest.

I'm still optimistic given increase in spot metal prices since PEA, and potential mine re-design to reduce Capex/Opex and accelerate production. Guess I'll need to wait for PFS for more clarity.

Best wishes.

P.S. I'm used to using payback periods from t=0, being project commencement. I find it odd to present based from start of production, which is many years (and many £££s) in the future.

I don't have much experience in exploration/mining project appraisal, so perhaps this is a common way of presenting.

Hopefully the IRR is being calculated from t=0, and not just start of production?(!!!)