Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Just a question - Dan's LinkedIn post was a great way to confirm ExploreCo by end-25, as well as progress on other items.

But why not clarify CIPA expectations as well? This month / ongoing etc?

Appreciate some may say he can only reiterate what was already in public domain from Annual Report / MD&A etc. But saying ExploreCo will be end-25 rather than end-26 in docs is already a change; why not highlight CIPA as well?

Addicknt - yes. And if there are delays, Solgold should look to spend a little cash to add value (via Porvenir PEA or focused target drilling).

Do you know how much was spent on Porvenir and regionals - exploration and evlauation - over the last financial year?

c$1.2m. Less than a million quid.

As an aside, isn't it this time of year Nick usually sells a few for his charitable foundation?

On that note, now would be a good time (after release of annual report and accounts) for Dan to purchase some shares. Put money where mouth is.

Hi Damers,

Given the Grasberg news last week, I found myself researching block caves some more. Watched a FCX video on Grasberg - WOW. Blew my mind the scale of the operation.

I know Grasberg has an open pit and 3 block caves, compared to the single block cave initially planned at Alpala (with potential for far more).

What really surprised me is metals comparisons:

Cascabel - 12.4Mt Cu, 31.3 Moz Au, 26.8Moz Ag

Grasberg - 14.0Mt Cu, 26.3 Moz Au, 121.3Moz Ag (Source, Wikipedia & 2022 FCX annual report)

Really shows how massive Cascabel is.

Cascabel will be as important for Ecuador as Grasberg is for Indonesia. $billions and $billions.

... and the MD&A included commentary on the 28th August mining law reforms, i.e. was being updated in September.

From p2 of MD&A "The information included in this MD&A is as of 24 September 2025". 24th September is after Dan said he was planning to meet with Govt/ARCOM.

Sorry addicknt, I didn't follow. Are you saying it DOESN'T indicate a row-back on CIPA, since other Cos are having their CIPAs approved separately?

Was Atico a full CIPA? I've only had a quick look but appeared the same as Solgold's AIPA (tax reductions, international arbitration etc).

Addicknt - I posted last week I suspect CIPA is being tied to ongoing negotiations on Supervision & Control Fee.

Fort - the MD&A does have forward-looking statements. e.g. Outlook for next financial year (page 9 of MD&A). It was odd CIPA was not mentioned there, or on page 7 where the AIPA was covered.

Not unusual for Solgold management to fluff things up in trade interviews and then fail to update on these in regulatory filings.

However, Dan strikes me as a bit more honest / credible so I'm hopeful confirmation, or at least an update, will follow in next few weeks.

Jack - it is very unlikely concentrator construction will soon commence at TAM or Alpala, since the Exploitation Agreement (6th June 2024) means this would trigger a $25m payment to Govt.

They haven't finalised mine layout at TAM.

For Alpala, will be early works on portal. And still need to relocate Santa Cecilia.

I think Chris Stackhouse is doing a decent job. No reason for a replacement.

Charles Joseland chairs the Audit & Risk Committee, so will be all over the financial reports, given his Audit and Oversight experience.

His statement is in the Annual Report (p43-45). Mentions internal controls, risk management and governance updated/developed as business grows - all standard stuff.

I think the annual report and financial statements are very good for the rationalised corporate office.

Hi RodneyT.

Yes, I thought it was 'odd'. Doesn't appear to be a hangover from 2024 report as aggregate figures and footnotes have been updated.

Just strange the Director fees have remained unpaid after another year, and were so far above James Clare's prior salary (c$70k pa).

Bennett Jones were the registered address for Solgold Canada Inc (i.e. Cornerstone) so it is understandable there would be higher fees given consolidation into SolGold Finance AG etc. Albeit would be on 'normal commercial terms'.

Reminds me of the admin and secretarial services that Bayview PMF (Jason Ward and his wife) used to provide, earning $000s. Which again, was on 'normal commercial terms'.

Also reminds me of the 'missing' $4.5m.

Oh well, I see all of the above as legacy issues and not concerned. Bigger priorities this next 6-12 months.

Fort - with all the restructuring and financing over last year / expected over next year Solgold really do need decent legal opinion.

Legal services have historically been provided by Bennett Jones, where James Clare (former Director of SOLG) is a partner.

If you want to see something 'interesting' look at page 121 of Annual Report. This shows a balance outstanding to Bennett Jones of $1.2m. Nothing particularly unusual about that, but $339,000 of that is apparently for James Clare Director fees. Why is James Clare earning that amount, and why being billed via Bennett Jones (so it doesn't show in other Director remuneration tables, e.g. Note 5)? If historic Director fees - there was a similar note in 2024 Annual Report - why have they not been settled by now?

Anyhow, back to Ryan Wilson, if more legal opinion is performed in-house, then I imagine this will reduce the amount of external legal advice, hence reducing costs?

Morning addicknt.

I understand your point and wasn't trying to undersell the going concern statement.

I'm pretty familiar with accounts & reporting.

Rephrasing what I was trying to say - yes I understand Solgold have no income and therefore need to demonstrate next year can be financed. However given the statements solgold have made in the past like demonstrating ability to successfully have placings, the Franco agreement which provides a likely (albeit not guaranteed) cash runway, recent share sale to Jiangxi at a premium, and options to sell some assets if required, I did consider it a formality this year. Certainly more likely than previous years when activity has been limited and the share price has been sliding.

Putting it another way, failing to get the accounts signed-off, or a caveated sign-off, would require a very poor Board and governance. And I don't think they are that useless, especially with Dan on board (Chris seems decent enough too). Hence a bit more confidence and positivity than my usual self!

ProfitSniffer - I have loads of positives about my investment. Even have colleagues / contacts involved too.

I guess my issues vs. others on here is I kind of expect progress to be good, don't state the obvious positives (i.e. I'd expect auditors to sign off company results, it isn't a 'win') and always looking for the next important step or update. Frankly having been involved for so long, and with a decent portion of my wealth, I'm also too focused on a successful outcome.

Maybe the chess match has been going on for a bit too long. But the chess clock certainly seems to be counting down. 12-18 months max for majors to move. Against a backdrop of huge demand for copper and gold.

Anyhow, thanks for not ripping my head off. My posts have not been intended to wind people up (with the possible exception of Jack, and I should rise above that).

Understood Rodney, and apologies for any offence caused.

Will look to be more measured in future.

Don't leave me to talk to NAL! (Sorry NAL).

I'll leave it there. I think it is fair I should stand up for myself and explain. Equally good to get some feedback; I'll reflect.

And Rodney, Pbow made a point earlier that when you were unhappy with state of play, and gathering details for some sort of shareholder action, why didn't you sell up?

I see it as ironic as I'm actually happy with progress and direction over next 12 months (of course we could want more and faster), and you're suggesting I should sell because I'm posting factual info from RNSs and Financial Reports.

Should ProfitSniffer sell up because he said recent TAM grades were cr-ap?

Rodney, I'm not looking for an argument.

You highlighted items that suggested spend and outflows were down. Operating expenses and financing costs were actually higher.

And I think total assets are less relevant for an explorer/developer, when liquidity / cash in bank is key?

PS - LTHs know I've been on LSE previously.

I've held for years.

Pbow and myself may share a similar analytical style. Do you share similar styles to anyone? Does anyone else?

Do you seriously think comments on LSE make any difference to trading?

P.S. I thought Pbow said he had only built up his stake recently?

Thank you Mathers. That is a fair point and on reflection I was a bit harsh on Rodney in particular. I was frustrated at what I considered to be vague and non-specific comments to questions, and apples being compared to pears.

In particular Rodney talked about everything being opinions, cannot be wrong, and facts used as evidence were dismissed. But when he wants to quote a fact (e.g. average volumes) he seems able.

But thank you for flagging.

RodneyT - you looked at the financials earlier (8.51am) and I was a bit puzzled by some of the comparisons:

"I note that losses reduced significantly: net loss fell to US$36.2m (vs US$60.3m last year). Cash position strengthened: net cash outflows down 94% to US$2.2m; total assets up to US$493m."

The net loss has fallen because last year had a $24m change in treatment of ammortisation of the NSR. i.e. an accounting change.

Admin expenses are actually higher 2025 vs. 2024 ($14m vs. $12.5m)

Finance costs are actually higher 2025 vs. 2024 ($22m vs. $18m)

(p8 of Financial Statements)

The Total Assets have gone up due to intangibles - basically the spend on Cascabel.

(p9 of Financial Statements)

Really what matters is cash in bank. And Solgold had plenty of that, given the $33m second tranche arrived soon after the 30th June reporting date.