REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses here.
Redknight1 - actually Solgold has far more than the SIX subsidiaries you mention. 25+.
Including a fair few inherited from Cornerstone. (See Note 9 in Annual Report for full details).
I'm sure the Strategic Review will look to rationalise these.
1984, yes, I mentioned Capex in original post.
Surely the majors who can afford it won't care about a few $bn or more?
More important to demonstrate spend $X and get 2 x $X back?
Rather than any uncertainty about profit on extracting the remaining 80% not included in current PFS?
1984 - agreed. But given the length of time spent on various studies/optimisation, surely SOLG know a rough NPV for everything?
Why not get the marketed NPV higher when discussing JV/sale etc?
(remember as well PFS NPV is just based on Alpala, haven't included Tandayama yet).
Reflecting above, the min. should be well above 30p, imho.
One thing that still puzzles me, why have Solgold not provided the market with a value of Cascabel on a 100% resource basis?
i.e. an NPV for the whole asset
This could be a management estimate or ideally optionality within a PFS? (Assuming this is allowed, rules may mean only one mine design can be reflected in a PFS).
Don't worry about the Capex, since a phased approach is planned. But show the value from additional block caves / resource at depth is economical to mine.
Surely much better to show an asset with a total NPV of $10bn+ (guess) than the phased approach NPV of $3bn?
Smickster, surely credibility is based on verifiable facts?
BBG posts too much that is verifiably nonsense. I.e. evidenced to be factually incorrect.
I'm all for large holders being positive about the upside. Even if there is some educated guesswork. But BBG ramps that up 100 levels, and is then rude to anyone who holds a different view, positive or not.
Whatever HH's background, he provides more 'news' (PDAC, MSCI, govt meetings, licence progress) than this board.
Sometimes better to look past perceived limitations to see what people can offer? In HH's case, lots that is useful.
And for the 10+ recommending his post, beware you are recommending inaccurate info.
I'm sorry, I don't wish to pick on redknight, but as usual he is either getting muddled or deliberately misleading; he said:
"To repeat from p235 of the 101 report (independently certified...)
Solgold has 10 Expressions of Interest for funding offtakes exceeding the total production from Cascabel..."
What p235 of the PFS report ACTUALLY says is:
"SolGold has to date received ten qualifying Expressions of Interest (EOI)"
These are from COMMODITY TRADERS.
Solgold say: "Demand for the Cascabel project concentrate from TRADERS was significantly in excess of planned production volumes"
In terms of OFFTAKES, what Solgold say is:
"SolGold has ALSO received material offers of funding in exchange for OFFTAKE from a number of traders. These include the provision of both short-term and longer-term capital with proceeds available for studies, mine construction and cost overruns as well as working capital during ramp-up."
All positive news. But he shouldn't call an apple a pear.
... as announced on 11th January, 2 months ago.
https://solarisresources.com/news/press-releases/solaris-announces-130-million-strategic-investment-by-zijin-mining-group
Agree with 1984 on this one.
Nothing wrong with shorting per se. Perhaps a bit more disclosure should be required (and much more enforcement).
Spoofing and layering more harmful in my view.
Hi addicknt, no strong disagreement from me on those points. (Noting in the past SOLG did have more senior leadership based in Ecuador. And DC visited as required.)
But that is different to the "scuppering the ship" comments others are making. Which borders on libellous, hence I wondered if people have evidence?
The quarterly MD&As and reports were clear on strategy, progress (i.e. actual drilling) and expenditures / cash balances.
Clearly DC's time wasn't perfect. I just see his departure reflecting a change in strategy, particularly once CGP were on board.
Anyone able to provide some evidence/details of "what DC was up to"?
To me, he got the boot for a failed fund raise and change in strategy once CGP finally agreed to get on board.
But sounds like others know much more about what happened?
Magicman3 - Yes, that's pretty standard for explorer/developers who don't generate any revenue.
Read the Going Concern statement in the recent half-year report. There is enough there to demonstrate SOLG's ability to raise finance when required, whether Equity, NSR etc...
... but this year, there may well be something more 'value creating'.
Quady - a couple of comments on your recent post:
(i) "I do believe we can obtain nearly all if not all funding based on a percentage of the NPV of Cascabel."
The problem with that statement is that the 'Capex-light' PFS has a lower NPV - $3.2bn after tax - than one which reflected the full resource.
What % are you expecting is reasonable - $1.5bn pre-prod Capex is already c50% of total NPV?
(ii) "We only require 1.55 billion to become revenue earning"
That is to first production.
Remember this is phased approach, capital-light. There is a two year ramp-up period before block cave hits 12Mtpa.
Hence unlikely to be break even initially. $2.3bn of free cashflow in first 5 years, $4.9bn in the following 5 years.
Payback period of 4 years AFTER first production.
JV seems a slow and relatively expensive route...
... in my view we want some interested majors to bid based on the whole asset value. Not the measly chunk that SOLG can finance/develop, even on a JV basis.
Pbow - thank you, a very fair point about ENSA.
Also the "on behalf of SolGold plc and SolGold Finance AG" bit in RNS - i.e. who will be backing this via the Finance AG vehicle.
Interesting times.
The choice of words here is interesting (noting it is an automated translation from Spanish):
"Cascabel, led by Solgold and signed by Scott Caldwell"
LED by Solgold.
No other company is preceded by 'LED'. Why is it used for Cascabel, given it is 100% Solgold owned?
Could this mean (and it is conjecture on my part) that the CIPA for Cascabel covers multiple stakeholders?
So Solgold plus JV partners (Jiangxi ? / Barrick?) or financiers?
"Among these projects are: Cascabel, led by Solgold and signed by Scott Caldwell; Crabs, by Lumina Gold, represented by Marshall Koval along with Diego Benalcázar; La Plata, from Atico Mining, subscribed by Alain Bureau; Cóndor, by Luminex - Adventus, signed by Álvaro Dueñas; El Guayabo, from Torata Mining, under the signature of Sergio Rotondo; and Bactech with representation by Ross Orr."
www.bnamericas.com/en/news/ecuador-signs-historic-agreements-for-more-than-us48-billion-within-the-framework-of-pdac-2024
Fort, re: "2. Full year results accounts sign off before March 31st "
I've flagged before - SOLG reporting year is June to June.
The end-Dec results were included in the Interim report/MD&A in mid-Feb. No audit sign-off.
Only the full year - June to June - results are audited. These are released towards end of Sep each year...
... usually in an RNS titled "Audited Full Year Results"
Ortherncopper - my thoughts exactly.
Praise Scott when we are over the finish line. 40p+ share price due to sale/partial sale/JV etc.
He has trashed the SP so we are celebrating 6p-7p rises. I'm sure there would have been ways of delivering a revised PFS and obtaining IPA without ruining the SP and giving the market so much uncertainty over last 12 months.
Don't get me started on the lack of comms and engagement with PIs.
Anyhow, today's news to me means the finish line could be in sight shortly. Then Scott will get my thanks and he can enjoy his $m in options.
30 days???
If a revised IPA for Cascabel, surely this would be classified as material, price-sensitive information and would require an announcement "as soon as possible". i.e. within a day.
HereforHemo - absolutely agree, based on numbers quoted it seems likely Solgold are involved.
The danger with this forum is that facts/statements can be twisted...
I DIDN'T say that Solgold are not included.
I simply questioned the $2.7bn that BBG was including to get to the $4.8bn. It is an old/redundant number now?