Member Info for NotMuchMoney

I can only hope an attempt to force an initial bid, to start a bidding war.

Ok redknight, I'll bite...

- current cash will be more like $7m. ($13m at end-Dec, reducing by c$3m+ a month).

- any offtake will, I believe, restrict cash solely for Cascabel. Still need working capital and funds for regional exploration/development

- "There are between 30 and 40 parties now in the dataroom" Source? Highly unlikely.

- your reference to p235 of PFS is still wrong. As I flagged before, the EOIs were different to offtake offers for funding. The offtake offers were "material" but nothing stated these were sufficient to cover initial or total capex

- your suggestion that, should an offtake offer be received to cover capex, the SP should automatically jump to the NPV value is completely ridiculous. Companies aren't valued at NPV at the pre-construction/construction phase, and aren't valued at what is expected over the next 40 years. What about the political, operational risks etc.

Despite redknight's constantly changing speculation, I'm looking forward to Solg's big reveal over the next 1-2 months. I genuinely think it will re-rate the SP. Significantly.

What a load of waffle. Can't be bothered to unpick some of the issues with what has been posted.

Former GFD? Wow. Worrying.

1984 - generally agree.

But capitalised expenses for the regionals are running at c$108m. A large amount of that will have been spent at Porvenir.

So potentially an IPO of Green Rock would more accurately reflect the value of the Porvenir exploration and MRE.

I think the points are that an IPO would require some capital, and also result in some dilution. redknight was arguing neither would be the case.

Is a better description 'diluting but value-creating'?

redknight makes his points with such confidence, and disdain for other views, that I genuinely question my understanding of what he is trying to say.

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.