Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Just so long as there is no raid on capital gains in SIPPs/ISAs, so I can keep my profits from when Solgold finally comes good.

Hopefully this is the last budget we need to be wary of that.

Agreed Fort, huge news 'due' in next month.

I suspect TAM assays this week (else Monday).

Then an updated PFS keeping momentum going into next week or two.

CIPA / ExploreCo - really don't know, given the continued delays.

ESIA submission and permit applications also due to facilitate the 3rd tranche of Franco funds and start early-works at Alpala.

A huge month ahead.

Don't get too excited though, Sierra Metals Market Cap is only c£140m.

Yes, subsidiary of Sierra Metals

Sierra Metals Inc. is a Canadian-based mining company that operates precious and base metal mines, primarily in Peru and Mexico.

https://www.sierrametals.com/home/default.aspx

I'm a bit puzzled by sudden reference to sub-level caving.

Presumably that means as a starter at Alpala (with TAM remaining open-pit(s))?

From a quick google:

"Sub-level caving can transition to block caving, and this is a strategic option for some mining projects to access deeper ore bodies. This transition involves moving from one caving method to another, often due to the exhaustion of upper-level deposits or the need to mine lower-grade, deeper ores. It requires careful planning, as the two methods have different technical and operational aspects, and a successful transition depends on factors like orebody characteristics and risk assessment"

Still sounds complicated, so not sure there is a massive risk reduction vs block cave (but I'm not a mine engineer).

As Fort says, amazing how different metals prices can influence a strategy.

But these are based on assumptions for 3-5 years in the future, hence uncertain.

I'd just like Solgold to settle on a plan, and get moving. Or sell it to someone who can.

Padmaster - I think that should read:

"we're hoping like hell they don't buy back half our gold streams; they are worth a fortune"!

Yes I agree Pbow. Was going to write that but had to jump on an urgent call.

I suspect the argument would be Dan's options should have been at a much higher price, but didn't want to open that can of worms again!

Also Scott had 30m reasons to be incentivised to do a better job, and look what happened.

InvestorPanda: "did anyone notice that dan is on 90k pa salary!???. that is not the salary of a ceo who is incentivised to drive value or growth or build a company etc."

Jack - I know you struggle with numbers at times, but you're aware that salary is for 3 months? Not a year?

Dan's base salary, according to end-Sep MD&A, is cUS$375k ($94k a quarter).

Hi Fort - even if SOLG had given notice at 7am this morning it would have been too late:

20th Nov = Notice Date

Add 15 WDs = 11th Dec

With the AGM only being allowed the following day (15 CLEAR days) - so earliest is Friday 12th

Lots of news due, but we can only guess at something going on. Always feels like Solgold do the important stuff in Nov/Dec!

Fort - 15 'clear days' notice required. i.e. exclude notice day and day of AGM.

So even if AGM RNS arrived today, it couldn't be before Friday 12th now? i.e. can't be 11th Dec as per SEDAR?

Translated:

Enami Launches Public Tender for New Mining Projects in Ecuador

Quito – The National Mining Company (Enami) announced today, November 19, the launch of the Public Tender for Best Bid for the signing of Commercial Agreements (Code AC-ENAMIEP-001-2025). This call for proposals seeks to revitalize the mining sector and attract national and international investment based on criteria of transparency and sustainability.

The process is open to public, private, or mixed legal entities, both national and foreign, domiciled in Ecuador, interested in participating in new strategic projects.

The Tender Guidelines are now available on the Enami website. Applicants can access the technical, legal, and operational requirements necessary to submit their proposals. Bids will be accepted in person from today, November 19, until December 12, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.

Good point addicknt.

Worth dropping Paul Smith a message to suggest that? Ultimately it's his responsibility.

Jack - this constant angry flip-flopping can't be good for your heart.

Why not let an Insti take your shares. Let them manage the risk and reap the rewards, whilst you sit in the sun with your 'profit'.

I think a number here try to be clever d.icks. Let them.

Best way to deal with it is to offer counter-opinion backed up with analysis. Rather than insults?

This board is scaring away actual analysis and research, however realistic, in favour of garbage AI ideas and ever-changing ramps from people like Jack.

Come on DBW, crude insults like that are beneath you.

Surely if you wanted an idea / analysis on construction and engineering, you'd consider Pbow's thoughts over 'Captain make it up' Jack?

Rodney is correct - we simply don't know the phased start-up costs.

It could (should?) be that the initial processing plant / infrastructre is smaller (Capital light approach), and even based at TAM?

The pipeline / rail development could be delayed until Alpala comes on line, temporarily using trucks / roads to get TAM material to Esmeraldas (and could be a cost saving deferring those port developments until Alpala comes on line too).

The above is why I'm so keen to see an updated PFS. Is modular development at TAM possible, to be replaced once larger-scale Alpala is complete / duplicate processing at TAM (including satellites) and Alpala? I really don't know.

Agreed, I don't think Scott staying or going will make much difference to progress or potential takeover.

However, I'd suggest keeping Scott for the following reasons:

+ technical (mining operations) knowledge.

Who else do we have? Drilling and studies are all outsourced (G Mining / Others). Jiangxi are offering technical assistance. But I feel an 'internal' pair of eyes are needed as well, including challenge on what Jiangxi may suggest (potential conflict of interest).

Remember a COO was hinted at c6 months ago. Nothing came of that - G Mining are covering.

+ his NED salary is low

+ given his options and shareholding, he is aligned with shareholders in wanting to maximise value

Agreed re: FNV addicknt, I'm not keen on rocking-the-boat at this AGM.

Scott's tenure was terrible, but he can now focus on technical side / G Mining, freeing-up Dan for strategy/stakeholders.

Scott still has his 30m reasons to get the SP as high as possible too.

Scott's CEO severance was US$319,615 (shown in annual MD&A).

This also showed Scott's NED salary as US$21,250 for Mar-Jun; with the same salary shown for Jul-Sep in the recent MD&A.

So Scott's salary is c£65k a year now. Pretty good value for his technical expertise / keep Franco and Osisko happy.

Fort - it is not pay for 9 months. It is:

Pay for 3 months ($21k, very reasonable)

Other benefits ($350k, purely an accounting item for his EXISTING share options increasing in value)

So really not much at all.

Fort - I concur on 10:21.

No problem with 2% dilution at 25p-30p to get ExploreCo moving.