Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
Sure - personally I would substitute the word “mad” for convenient. Not having one allows the largest shareholder (direct and indirect) to continue to influence (NM). It would be crazy to accept that a man of his character would shrink into the background this easily.
I emailed PR last week and they said (on 17th June)
“ We are looking to update on Porvenir/regional exploration in the next couple of weeks where timing for the potential Porvenir MMRE will likely be included.”
Red "they've never mentioned him at all..I've been in contact with IH, KM, KS, FH, LH and of course good old Eliza".
It is not in their interests to mention him at all. He had to be seen to stepping right back - especially for NC and BHP. Let's not forget that Solg is in his blood and he is [Through his varous companies] Solg largest shareholder. The lack of a n appointed CEO now for me is telling. The truth is we will never know. I have also been in contact with the company - none of us PIs will be told the complete story.
Red as a major shareholder I would suggest that he is pulling some strings rather than a definite “NOT”.
No urgency to get a ceo unless Nick is still pulling strings in the background....
Addinckt - agree the company PR have said as much to me
In terms of the new shareholders that have come onto our register, these are mainly large long-only institutional investors. We expect to update the Major Shareholders document on our website in the next week. This only includes significant shareholders, see the last document: https://www.solgold.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021.02.01-Key-Security-Information-Update-website.pdf, the new shareholders will not be in the list. The update will reflect the latest shareholdings of the major holders following last week’s placing, some of which have already been RNS’d this week following TR1 notifications. We do not publish our full shareholder register.
The MD&A that we expect to publish at the end of next week will include an update of activities at Tandayama in the last quarter.
Regarding the Franco-Nevada upsize option, this will not be taken up as we stated in the proposed placing announcement: “Subject to the successful completion of the Placing, it is the Company's intention not to exercise the option to upsize the Franco-Nevada facility by a further US$50 million to US$150 million.”
CD - is it likely it could be a form of bidding war - ie those who want the shares will get at the highest price? Will play NC and BHP off against each other...
The other question I will try and ask Solgold today is regarding statements such as:
“The Company is confident that this revised approach being studied from that which was previously considered is much more beneficial for SolGold and will deliver significant shareholder value.”
“ This could result in potentially significant cost savings. “
What we do not know is the benchmark they are working against.
The last “numbers” we have had from the company are:
Those mooted on the PEA (which is now superseded by the MRE3 based on Sedar comments)
The payback and development costs listed in presentations.
We do not have sight of the figures which were on the first planned PFS in December. So were they bad (and is this the benchmark)?
I am also pleased with this update. I think that they will set up for a TA drill update post elections which should give a further clue.
In the "new Solgold" approach of steady, professional, under promising and over delivering this is really positive.
One interesting point is the word "potential" precedes production three times in the RNS. Not sure whether this means potential in that Solgold may not take it to production and leaves open for JV – or they want to take a cautios approach in a forward looking nature.
“· much earlier access to the resource with shortest time to potential first production;”
“mining of higher head grades in the earlier years of potential production.”
“Anticipated benefits of the revised approach being studied include lower expected execution risks, lower expected pre-production capital and significantly reduced time to first potential production.”
Zoros, they are aiming for a MRE on Porvenir in 2021. Ask IR and they will confirm.
Rich3r- yes they did. Company are quite open about this and time will tell what it looks like.
Been in contact with Eliza - she is leaving end of month. Heads up to those who want to send her a note and wish her well....
Just browsing on this - if only they stuck to the original plan, not fallen out with CGP, then we may well have had Blanca drilled, a low cap-ex first PFS and maybe NM in his job CEO job still (post March). They say hidsight is wonderful, still question why they didn't go ahead with this strategy - as it was obvious to them then also...
https://www.miningweekly.com/article/solgold-ceo-high-grades-deliver-independence-2018-09-28
Appreciate the RNS / Presentation yesterday gave snippets of info with regards to the grassroots exploration projects.
What Solgold has failed to do, to date is deliver on assay results for Blanca - announced due end Feb/1st week of March
Drill Assays outstanding from 5-8 of Porvenir, and drill results from Tandayama. The question from me is why is the company silent on this? Previously they said that they were batching the news flow - a month from last drill updates and nothing.
It is not what the company is saying - more what the company is not saying - and why?
Quady - suggest you read this RNS https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SOLG/clarification-to-technical-disclosure-ct6l53sm246tqgr.html
Note:
"SolGold acknowledges the defaults raised by staff of the OSC as a result of its review. At the request of staff of the OSC, SolGold will address these through the removal of references to the superseded PEA and filing an amended MRE#3 on SEDAR. It is expected the amended report will be filed by the end of September 2020. As the 2019 PEA results have not been carried forward in the new technical report, SolGold will not refer to the 2019 PEA results in ongoing public disclosure
"
Quady - read the official RNS - not allowed to refer to PEA. You therefore cannot base your arguments on this... :) Touche
Addinckt - so much better put than I could have done, The obvious has been staring at so many for so long. It is a matter of time...
Quady - not disputing the comments stated by Co about Cascabel - I am stating that the obvious stpry of partners (JVs) is unfolding. The question is how will it unfold with Cascabel, BHP, NC etc. This is what many have been saying on here is obvious - the question is when. (And no the company have not stated it - yet)