Member Info for NotMuchMoney

PS - Why would I want to talk down a share I've held Long and researched for many years?

Across 8 of my posts today there are a total of 4 recommends.

Similar story yesterday.

Are people not interested in items from the MD&A, including Supervision & Control Fee and CIPA?

Or am I still considered a deramper based on the mud thrown by FTJNY/PS/Jack?

If thought providing facts and debate was the purpose of these boards.

"No mention of the CIPA, which was meant to be imminent."

Wary of a tit-for-tat with CIPA and Supervision & Control Fee. Solgold are withholding Fees (as are others in industry), as don't believe legally enforceable. I presume Govt won't sign-off on CIPA until an agreement reached.

If Govt are trying to be pro-mining they need to get on with granting licences/IPAs and resolve the licence fee issue (which is small in the grand scheme of potential mining revenue).

Also, disappointed to see MD&A saying "Target completion of comprehensive Feasibility Study by late 2026".

Why can't the comms / docs be consistent? Is it by mid-2026 or by late-2026?

There is some interesting commentary in MD&A around Supervision & Control Fee.

Solgold paid $0.2m in July "under protest" for Cascabel to avoid any delays in permitting or IPA process.

Hi Damers. Thanks. Are you sure there wasn't an 'early' in there when he mentioned next year?

There were multiple post-conference interviews, I can't recall which one.

Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. At least there is some clarity now.

Your opinion carries no weight Jack.

Despite the mud-slinging and encrouraging others to turn on me.

Remember your 'TAM results will never be released as a takeover has already been agreed' confidence and wager?

You stayed hidden after that one. And most of your other incorrect ramps.

Anyhow... and brace yourself... I agree with you the re-rate hasn't begun and next 12 months should be incredible...

... as Solgold ticks off the main items and de-risks the project.

Addicknt, re: locating the annual report:

See https://solgold.com/investors/#financialReports

(it is not there on https://solgold.com.au/)

Not sure why there are two sites with different branding.

There is also an MD&A, which I wasn't expecting but good to see.

Agreed re: Solaris Fort - but that is the problem with ChatGPT word salad.

An interesting side analysis tool. But anything that uses Wikipedia or SimplyWallStreet for analysis, and EV/EBIDTA for comparitives of explorers/developers, is likely to struggle.

Had to chuckle at the Achievements email from Solgold, saying "Acceleration of the Cascabel Feasibility Study".

Mid-2026 is not accelerated. It is not the 'early 2026' I thought Dan had said in interviews. Dan was also going to push G-Mining to go at a faster pace.

"Mid" also gives wriggle-room - could be May, could be August. Would have preferred a more definitive 'by end H1'.

Anyhow, I'm sure there will be an updated TAM MRE or two before then, potentially an updated PFS that will be dropped into final DFS.

And lots of parallel activity taking place.

Pbow - the 'PFS addendum' activity from c2022 was considering an open pit resource at Alpala. But agree, most likely that 'open pit' would relate to TAM now.

Hi Pbow. Yes, I think you are right; from the PSA:

"“Project” means, collectively, the Alpala copper-gold project, the Property, and all other projects or properties from time to time located within the Cascabel Concession in the Imbabura and Carchi Provinces of Ecuador, and all Project Assets."

Don't know how I missed before.

Yes Fort I agree. Would make sense to amend PSA to incorporate TAM cashflows and reflect the revised milestones / early construction at Alpala.

As you say, double-win for Franco/Osisko. It is in their interests to get this progressing rapidly.

My only question is whether this would be reliant on an updated TAM study to 'prove' the increased value. Or Franco have seen enough to want everything progressing fast.

As an aside Fort, do you consider TAM to be part of the Franco/Osisko PSA?

If not, it really would make sense for this to form part of the Cascabel royalties. $600m spent on TAM and early portal development would really reduce the additional Capex Solgold need to find to complete the open pit to generate early cashflows to fund block cave.

Fort - was it approved by Franco/Osisko, or was this CP waived?

It has all become a bit fluid due to TAM. i.e. Second installment required finalisation of all geotech drilling, including for TSF, as well as scope of works and tender for feasibility study. Also a 3-year budget from the Project Development Plan.

The above will be ongoing or have changed due to TAM Phase 2 drilling.

Hi Fort - your 3:31 question was exactly what I was typing at the time.

No I haven't worked it out yet. But hopefully you see what I mean about accelerating the Construction Deposit since construction would have started?

Dan has hinted that Solgold (and hopefully stakeholders) are comfortable on the quality on the asset. Hence delay final study whilst additional drilling takes place, and accelerate construction. All needs to be funded, so is this via 'swapping' some of third installment and construction deposit a bit?

I don't know.

And on this note, Dan talking about 'early construction' may hint they are looking at unlocking some of the Franco construction deposit (which is up to $650m).

Appreciate that is a bit 'rampy' for me, but as Fortissimo said, metals prices are significantly higher than when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed.

If, IF, Franco are supportive, they may well be very keen on early construction and early cashflows via TAM (I'm still unclear if TAM is technically part of 'Cascabel' for the PSA).

Could TAM be added to the scope of PSA (via finalised feasibility study including both Alpala and TAM), Franco/Osisko receive royalties from the open pit, in return for advanced construction financing? I don't know, but seems a win/win.

Rodney - you are really getting your wires crossed re: CIPA and $33m.

The CIPA is NOT related to the third installment. Read the Franco agreement (section 9.18 in particular). CIPA only relates to the construction deposit.

As I've said many times already, the $33m hinges on:

- feasibility study

- permit applications

- power agreement

Given the feasibility study is likely delayed to H1 2026, and permits will be contingent on further drilling at TAM. Hence, WITHOUT WAIVERS, $33m is unlikely to be available in Q4.

For clarity, I still think Solgold have other funding options (CIPA will unlock many more), and waivers may be given anyhow. I'm not concerned.

FTJNY - this 'spat' only started when I queried Rodney's statement the $33m third installment would still arrive in Q4.

Solgold's recent statements highlight the main CPs for this $33m are very unlikely to be met by Q4.

I'm not worried. Solgold have options - they may be able to get some of the CPs waived. I highlighted a few potential advance funding options which would be value accretive, meaning any possible delay to third installment would not be an issue.

When CIPA lands (a risk this isn't soon given reliance on MEM/Govt) this will also provide further options.

My recent agitation stems from the fact I'm a bit hurt being called a deramper frequently and openly.

I've been Long and posting factual info on Solgold for many years. Far longer than Rodney.

I only want the share to do well. But also being aware of the various activity and potential next steps.

Anyhow, clearly time for me to take a break from this school playground - sorry - share chat.

I'll enjoy reading the annual report when it arrives. I hope you do too.

Some people like research and analysis, going through the detail, some people like speculation.

Rodney - you're becoming a little like Jack. No need to lower yourself to the 'i must be a pseudo of Pbow' madness.

Filtered. And based on your inability to read basic RNSs (hole 58), let alone Franco agreements and CPs, not missed.