Member Info for NotMuchMoney

There doesn't seem much appetite for debating the requirements of the Franco funding agreement, or options to finance various activity over next 6-12 months.

Lots of 'random event X will happen' instead.

I get it, analysis is boring and takes time and effort (and understanding). Speculation is more fun.

I need to learn to keep my research/thoughts to myself and not get drawn into other posters' unsubstantiated opinions.

I find it a bit odd to refer back to a July 2024 RNS, when the company itself has communicated a change in priorities and timescales.

Equally, strange in my view not to consider the 3 contractual CPs in the actual Franco-Osisko agreement. i.e. what Solgold need to deliver to unlock the next $33m.

Rather than guessing a CIPA would mean none of those CPs are required and the $33m arrives anyhow.

I agree lots of different things could happen in next 3 months. But I'm working with what is known. And the CPs are known.

Rodney - without wanting to waste too much time duplicating my posts from the weekend...

3 key CPs from the Franco/Osisko agreement for third installment of $33m are:

- delivery of a Feasibility Study

- submission of final permits (including for TSF plans)

- power agreement

So, if Solgold continue to drill TAM and work on Tailings plans, they delay any revised PFS or DFS and the above into 2026. Hence not meeting the third installment CPs.

Yes, perhaps CIPA can be used to waive the CPs and F/O are keen because construction commences sooner. But what you previously posted gave no indication you were aware of the CPs the third installment relies on. Which feels rather key to me.

Rodney - I was also going to follow up about the Franco 3rd installment, and why, given the CPs required for this, you were sure it would be achieved in Q4.

Not sure if you ever provided your justification (you said you would look after the weekend).

However, I've seen all the relevant posts - including my breakdown of what the CPs were and considerations, including finance options - have all been deleted.

I suspect the usual idiots over the weekend causing threads to get deleted.

Frustrating to share key info on this board only for it to be wiped. One could almost assume it is deliberate.

I don't think that is correct Rodney.

Hole 58 has been fully drilled and all assays reported (15th Aug).

Yes, future drilling is planned, but nothing I can see so far indicates a planned hole near bottom of 58.

The bottom of hole 58 is outside the (proposed) planned pit area.

Also, in the grand scheme of things, Solgold are targetting shallow, high-grade at TAM. Not 300m+ deep (noting this is not a bad thing to have)

The Solgold SP drifts when there is no newsflow.

We are 'falling' relative to gold price appreciation and other gold explorers / producers.

Keep the news coming Dan. Likely items are:

High probability:

Remaining TAM assays

Additional Phase 2 TAM progress / assays

Medium probability:

CIPA

Low probability:

ExploreCo structure confirmation

Additional financing confirmation (e.g. to commence construction)

PFS/DFS timescale update

Related article:

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/tens-thousands-protest-dundees-ecuador-mine-project-near-key-water-reserve-2025-09-16/

Article also mentions Azuay province (SW Ecuador) as voting to block mining projects in the area. I think this has been covered before.

Sharug is a Solgold concession in Azuay (previously a high-priority target and drilled in 2021) which no longer appears in the regional priority list:

https://solgold.com.au/projects/ecuador/regional-projects/

No other concessions in Azuay are on the priority list.

Would be an interesting future referendum if options were:

A. Keep the diesel subsidy, part-funded by Lomo Larga and mining

B. Preserve the environment but pay much more for diesel

Suspect A would be more important to the majority.

The solution is responsible mining and community engagement. In this respect Solgold have done well.

Agreed PuzzledPete. But careful though, saying that a buyer would pay a lot less can be interpreted as de-ramping on here.

And in terms of why Pbow's / my views may - at times - appear at odds with some of the more speculative views here...

How many understand project capital appraisal techniques and price adjustments for risk?

Why do you think brokers produce notes reflecting current stage of project, risk and future upside, and a price target? Are they being negative?

No-one said "oh, Dan is being negative showing a current NAV of c45-50p". All the focus was at the high 'at contruction' NAV some years in the future.

(Caveat, yes I'm aware of the MASSIVE upside as metals prices and discount rates are revised as we progress. This is why I've been invested for so long).

How many have read the Franco/Osisko financing document to understand what is required for each installment? And the activities required to complete these?

The answer, I suspect, is very few.

Pretty obvious that is aimed at me FTJNY. Surprised you'd didn't have the bottle to just name me.

If it is the choice of 'team Pbow' or 'team Mad Jack' I'll go with Pbow thanks.

Pbow's posts are typically based on fact/experience, whereas Jack generates 100+ contradicting opinions each year, virtually all turn out to be incorrect.

Each to their own if they choose to base investment decisions on facts and analysis or ramblings of a poster and use of Chat GPT.

DBW / Rodney

People are comparing apples with oranges.

The highest NAV in Dan's LinkedIn post is at production. Not now. Not at start of construction. At production.

i.e. assumes initial Capex has been paid for and ignores 3-4 years discounting of future revenue streams.

People saying the current NAV is 165p is very different to saying a possible future NAV could be 165p.

Most of the 'abuse' Jack gets is for his constantly changing position.

The "management will never release the TAM drilling results because a takeover has already been agreed" being one of the more recent.

Fort, re: "And that uses a hefty discount and doesn't really apply higher metal prices."

How do you think the c165p Production NAV has been calculation? i.e. what discount rate, metals prices etc.

(I suspect it may reflect the removal of c4 years of discounting - i.e. values the project at the start of production - c2029 - once initial Capex has been paid and income is being received straight away, i.e. without discounting)

Agreed, proactive comms by DV. I imagine he has lots of free time sat in international departure lounges!

Good work DV.

Rodney, some interesting opinions from you:

"plus TAM and our other resources are performing well. Q4 will bring another $33m or so from FN."

The counter-argument would be the other resources (i.e. regionals) have been gathering dusts for years. Still awaiting official news on ExploreCo plans (appreciate some is outside of Dan's control, and good news - i.e. lots of interest - may delay things).

On the $33m in Q4, you're aware of all the CPs required for the third installment? In particular delivery of a feasibility study? And applications for all permits (incl TSF design)? And a power purchase agreement?

I can't see these all being complete in Q4 whilst TAM drilling and pit designs are being finalised. However, SOLG don't have immediate funding concerns (and may have other finance routes in play) and not an issue if third installment moves into 2026 in my view. Dan has already said there is confidence in the asset and wants to get cracking.

On balance I think Dan is doing a good job.

Hi addicknt/Pbow. I'm pretty sure in the Beaver Creek Kitco Mining interview Dan did refer to it as a Construction IPA.

As you both state it is a Complimentary IPA, and will provide protection for the construction stage. Which is presumably why Dan referred to it in this way.

I eagerly await it.

Agreed Orthern. Whatever the Annual Report - due in c10 days - shows Dan's CEO pay and benefits to be, the last few months have certainly shown him to be worth the money.

And I've no problem with him making £15m on his share options if he gets us to a £1.07 sale price.

(Need him to be greedy rather than settling for £6m at 47p).

Yes I know Damers, but I couldn't see this in Figure 2 of RNS, just the planned TAM-5.

But I got my magnifying glass out and can see the faint hole 69 in Figure 1.

So hole 69 and TAM-5 are around hole 58 and important to determine how wide that high-grade area may be. Especially TAM-5, given how shallow that is planned.

Damers - is that hole 'TAM-5' in Fig 2 of today's RNS?

(Not sure it can be, as that is one of the Phase 2 planned holes, with drilling not commenced, whereas hole 69 has already started?)

Don't know why Solgold have changed the terminology for hole IDs, has made it difficult to compare.

Thanks Pbow, I appreciate the details.