Member Info for NotMuchMoney

RodneyT - I generally agree and a risk I have called out before.

However, we have to hope the current Board are not mugs and will also receive specialist / independent opinion on any proposals. G-Mining appear to have a good track record of planning and delivery in Ecuador.

P.S. The technical assistance was part of the Jiangxi share purchase wasn't it? Hence unlikely the board will go back on that given they made a point of flagging the 'free advice' being available for giving some shares away on the cheap.

That sounds promising, but I'd question whether they need to be there in person (unless for a signing or photo op).

So hopefully it is a sign of solid progress.

I believe they need to submit by 3:30pm on day after change.

So should appear in FCA data tomorrow morning.

Finally, we have no idea how 'set up' Solgold have been by a potential acquirer(s). i.e. looking likely to bid only to drop out - or require an open pit starter - late in the process.

That could include Jiangxi.

I'm wary of their 'technical advice and expertise' causing Solgold to drill in the wrong place and burn precious cash or waste time. Only to leave Solgold exposed and at risk of a budget takeover by Jiangxi themselves.

Still a huge game of cat and mouse. With Solgold being the slow-moving mouse.

A bit unfair to have a go at Stackhouse in my view.

Direct your anger / frustration at Scott and the Board instead. And that includes Nick, since I suspect it is his pivoting and bright ideas that have caused this mess (merger, strategic review, reset).

The minimum exploration expenditure is shown in the MD&A and financial statements:

From end-June 2024 the min. exploration commitments were:

(i) $7.7m over next 12 months

(ii) c$1m over years 2-5 (suspect that figure increases should the commitments under (i) be met)

On the flip side Fort, IF management announced delays or issues with 2nd milestone progress, the SP would drop and management end up awarding themselves options at 5p level. More reward for failure.

Absolutely agree with you re:

(i) there should be more regular updates on progress (something that was frequently promised under Scott but never materialised)

(ii) options should have staggered prices and/or clear performance targets

Afternoon Pbow.

Thanks; I'd always interpreted 'infill' - based on the name - to be item 1 (reduce spacing between drill holes to improve confidence in classification) rather than the additional items on refining models and mine design.

Absolutely agree on the TSF reliance on Tandayama, as clearly highlighted in the PFS.

All these experts/consultants and still doesn't appear they can work out a critical path and prioritised expenditure.

P.S. I was wrong to mention 42 holes aleady drilled at Tandayama.

The correct answer, based on MRE#3, is 51 holes so far.

I find it shameful that getting Tandayama to a point it can be incorporated into a Cascabel PFS has been so slow. Surely they could have found $4m-$5m for the drilling.

Pbow - thanks for your post yesterday: "Notmuchmoney the PFS specifically states why it isn't incorporated into said document. It needed more drilling. They allowed a budget for it of 5 million usd."

Yes, I see the PFS (S26.4.1) mentions an additional $5m to drill Tandayama. However this is termed "minor in-fill drilling", rather than further exploration holes that Solgold announced last month. In particular checking for a mineralised zone between pits 1 and 2, and defining near-surface limits.

42 holes have already been drilled in Tandayama-America for MRE #2. 42.

Therefore, other than 'incompetence', can someone please explain why this was not incorporated into the revised Alpala PFS and why still further drilling is required?

(Note, I know the previous drilling noted geochemical anomalies to the East required further drill testing).

Quady: "Slug the part of drilling the holes at Tandy is for open pit, so this counts as construction"

Respectfully, that is a ridiculous statement. On that basis the initial holes drilled in Tandayama in H1 2021 were the start of construction? In which case Solgold are actually ahead of schedule?!!!

I don't have Level 2 data but if there has been a 19m trade, that is broadly the size of closing the Actusray short.

Noting I would have expected more positive momentum as this was closed.

RodneyT, looking at recent volumes and uncertainty you think small shareholders would have taken 150m shares at 9p+?

Not sure I understand the 'bilateral' point re: Osisko. Are you forgetting about Franco Nevada too? They are the big players in the $650m financing.

And don't forget the previous NSRs with each.

I'm actually pretty relieved Jiangxi came in, as the lack of news suggests SOLG still some way from the 2nd milestone payment. And that doesn't provide for any regionals and upcoming tenement fees etc.

Fort - I think you're missing the point.

We have - in vague terms at least - been told what has been going on. Solgold have been reducing their cash burn during a (far too long) strategic review, i.e. been told they are not doing much at all.

Hence, regionals paused (other than basic care and maintenance), very little spend on studies at Cascabel, drawn out decisions on things like tailings and contractors.

A lot of time wasted whilst I suspect the Board have been hunting that elusive offer or JV. (15 active companies in the data room, as redknight and others would go on about).

Evidence suggests nothing acceptable was forthcoming, and as people like Bozi have mentioned in the past, now relies on Tandayama to get things going. As mad as that appears for a Tier 1.

Occam's razor suggests Solgold management have just been rubbish over the last 2 years. Basically, since CGP came onboard.

For those wanting to compare the financials:

https://luminagold.com/projects/cangrejos-project/pfs-summary/

Post-Tax $2.2bn NPV and 17.2% IRR based on a gold price of $1650. So $$$s on spot Gold prices.

HOWEVER, Lumina are using a (slightly cheeky given Ecuador risk premium and recent interest rates etc) rate of 5% for their NPV/IRR calcs, vs. 8% for Solgold.

Hi addicknt

I was splitting hairs on my interpretation that, because Scott's options had a change of control clause, that Dan's must do as well. Then I re-read the LTIP.

On i) I agree, nothing unusual about that clause. But does grate re: the low option price and an incentive for Dan to get a low short-term exit.

On ii) you're probably right. But generally a bit fed up of having to dig around for pertinent info.

Dan's salary and benefits, whether Scott's options have lapsed or will lapse after 90 days etc. If it wasn't for the quarterly MD&A we'd be left waiting for the annual report. If there is an intention to list an ExploreCo on ASX I hope they retain the TSX listing too - just for the requirements to publish useful info on a regular basis!

Sorry RodneyT, scratch that...

I've been through the LTIP (Change of Control amendments made in June 2022) and can see that under a Change of Control, all awards will vest early.

Given Dan's options were awarded under the LTIP, these terms would apply. Same as Scotts.

Like everything Solgold, why make it clear when they can make it opaque!

RodneyT - "The options awarded are immediately vesting at any stage from now subject to the Change of Control conditions (as were/are) SC's."

Do you have a source for that, or is it (reasonable) opinion presented as fact?

There is nothing in the RNS / public info that details change of control terms. Only reference to the LTIP?

Pbow - I consider the CEO option price to be important in the bigger picture.

Solgold board should not be giving the impression that the CEO is to be rewarded at these levels (7p).

The market could interpret this as CEO would be happy, and rewarded, with a quick sale at 20p. When most of the shareholders consider true value of Cascabel alone to be far north of this.

The Board should show they are aligned on long-term value, not looking for the exits.

Anyhow, best wishes for the Easter weekend.