Member Info for NotMuchMoney

DJG1234 - I've been travelling and missed yesterday's presentation.

Can you tell me if the DFS (or revised PFS) discount rate reducing from 8% to 7% was in the presentation? Or is that a 'guess' as the project de-risks between last PFS and DFS?

FTJNY - last night you wrote a very negative post about PBOW (ironic given the point you were making about critical people).

You stated that in your corporate life you'd seen many negative people like PBOW and you didn't like them.

In my corporate life I've seen many overly-positive people - speculators who talk big and think small. People who have one idea and shoot-down and disregard critical thinking about what activities may involve and the potential risks.

When these risks crystallise and projects get delayed or cancelled, these speculators quickly say not their fault for not being aware, and deflect onto other business. Never giving credit to the 'negatives' who had considered and flagged these valuable points earlier.

There are many dreamers on this board who think Cascabel is easy - just a big hole in the ground needed to earn billions. It is more complicated than that. PBOW has experience in some of the relevant areas and should be a valuable voice here. At least to partially offset the rampers and their regularly changing theories.

Just my opinion.

Thanks DBW. I thought I remembered some excitement in the past about potential GDXJ inclusion. But reclassification of ETF means we won't get in that one now.

ProfitSniffer - assuming I'm reading that correctly, it means unlikely Solgold would be included?

Since at current valuations Cascabel's Copper is c$130bn, Gold c$70bn, Silver c$1bn?

i.e. the Gold and Silver totals less than the 50% required?

Don't worry RodneyT, I won't be going through that long list.

The established market principle is assets get sold for a higher % of NAV the closer they are to production.

Hence higher sale price as progress through:

Resource Estimate

PFS

DFS

Construction

Production

I agree with you that Solgold has plenty of upside because of potential for competing buyers / asset being much larger than in current study / increased metals prices.

P.S. No recommends to any of my analysis of Rodney's % of NAV examples.

I guess people aren't interested so I won't bother (boring people) in future.

Ah Jack, back on the bottle again.

So you can oscillate from 'takeover agreed' to 'Board are delaying for more cheap options' to 'items promised 6 months ago not delivered' to 'TAM is irrelevant' to 'TSX and Swiss listing means a Chinese buyer'?

Hoping for a quick sale to avoid your ranting for another 12 months.

Hi Bozi, hope you are well, congrats on EEE.

Still an opportunity to get updated slides in tomorrow (particularly with time difference to Colorado).

I accept the point about others saying news due before conferences. But it did seem reasonable given the conferences lined up.

I wonder if "Receive and report assays from Hole 57 and other pending holes in August" was deliberately ambiguous - i.e. could be interpreted as the holes that were pending in August will be reported once assays received. end-August felt 'tight' given progress made to that point.

I'm very much expecting the Tandayama RNS to arrive tomorrow morning. So Dan can share a positive update with attendees at the Precious Metals Summit.

If the RNS does not land tomorrow I will be very disappointed. Appreciate there are other events coming up where Solgold could share updates, but really it should be ready by now.

Jack - a very fair question re: Filo.

Firstly, you need to check your units. BHP paid CAD$4bn, which is cUS$2.9bn. Post-tax NPV was US$1.3bn (the $1.86bn you quote is pre-tax).

The assets include Filo del Sol as well as the Vicuna district. Josemaria looks like it can be very large, with District-level scale.

I think BHP overpaid 'fair value' at the time for the future potential.

Have to hope BHP see the same future potential at Cascabel.

Rodney - I don't understand your comments on opinions vs. statements.

I asked you to provide evidence to support your statement (or opinion?) of 0.8-1.1x NAV on average. Ideally similar projects that were Pre-DFS and sold for >$1bn.

Of all the data available to you over the last 10 years, you've provided 5 cases, 2 of which are below 0.7x NAV, another (the main one) was sold at a far more advanced stage and hence I don't see this is directly comparable to Solgold?

Anyhow, no point dragging this on. You have your view and I have mine.

More important is to get the Tandayama drilling results and show Cascabel is de-risked.

No problem RodneyT, and I respect your right to that opinion.

But I've proved the data you've put forward doesn't support your statement of AVERAGE 0.8-1.1x NAV:

"it is clear that Tier 1 assets purchased over the last 10 years ago have been sold at between 0.8 and 1.1 of NAV, on average"

Which isn't to say Solgold cannot achieve 0.8-1.1x NAV in the current market. Especially if based on the prudent NPV in 2024 PFS.

Very difficult to compare and form an opinion based on previous deals. In particular becuase of how rare Tier 1s are, especially solely-owned by explorers/developers.

Too many different prices/assumptions/sovereign risks etc.

RodneyT,

So out of your list:

Las Bambas - as posted this project was way more developed than Cascabel. Also there is no 'fixed' NPV I can find, just your indicative range.

Timok - a quick search shows Zijin's purchase (CAD$1.8bn) included both the Upper and Lower Zones. After tax NPV of Upper Zone only was cUS$1.8bn.

So thats $1.3bn for $1.8bn Upper, plus extra implied NPV for Lower Zone. Maximum 0.7 (much lower allowing for Lower Zone)

Brucejack - no time to look at

Detour Lake - I think you are confusing CAD$ and USD$; the purchase price was CAD$4.9bn/US$3.7bn; NPV5 was CAD$4.9bn

But yes, agree this looks close to 1xNPV (difficult to find data from time of sale)

Guyana Goldfields - well less than 0.7x, and at less than $0.25bn I don't think a relevant comparison

Jack - when did the CEO or Board say they were after 1xNPV? And is that the PFS NPV, or something higher reflecting TAM and increased metals prices?

Just hand-waving from you as usual.

Well Las Bambas fails the check straight away - this was at an advanced stage of construction (c6months away from production).

The environmental impact assessment had been approved by the Peruvian Govt 2 years before the sale.

i.e. far more advanced and de-risked than Cascabel.

If you can let me know the date of your posts on any other similar assets sold at > 0.8xNAV?

Rodney - I'd be interested to see your data to support "it is clear that Tier 1 assets purchased over the last 10 years ago have been sold at between 0.8 and 1.1 of NAV, on average"

What data do you have for pre-production assets (really this should be pre-DFS assets) with a sale price of >$1bn?

Can you give three examples in the last 10 years of these being sold at > 0.8xNAV?

Rodney - I don't disagree that there is global pressure to secure metals reserves. And IF there are multiple interested parties, the price achieved could be higher than traditional estimates at this stage.

The issue I do have with your 0.8-1.1 of a FUTURE POTENTIAL NAV is no-one will pay this at this stage.

The PFS/DFS won't use a spot price.

The buyer will still make an adjustment for risk. And pre-DFS and pre-construction that will be a high adjustment.

So at the moment, 35%-50% of a NPV of $5bn or NAV of c125p. Gives 44p-62p.

BALLPARK.

With lots of potential upside for TAM and Porvenir.

Rodney - I've no problem with a potential future NAV of 150p+

If, that's IF...

- Solgold find $1bn of cash to fund the initial Capex (and allowing for cost of this capital, e.g. interest of lost revenue from streaming/royalty)

- there are no issues/delays/cost overruns with mine construction (haven't allowed for inflation since 2024 PFS)

- including resolving the power and transportation challenges

- all permits arrive without issue

There is nothing unusual about studies using prudent metals prices. Or using proven reserves, rather than including probable.

There is also nothing unusual about brokers discounting for risk...