Member Info for NotMuchMoney

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?

Addicknt - I think I'm already on BBG (and redknight) filter list anyhow!

But still trying to make a factual contribution for the benefit of users of the board.

I agree with you re: it being a more exiting time for Solgold. At least vs. the last 12 months!

I don't agree on those workings BBG...

Why use the $2.7bn 2022 PFS spend? We've overwritten that with the low-capex PFS.

Also there is an existing IPA in place for the 2022 PFS?

This is the tweet that mentions the $4.8bn, with photos of 4 groups with agreements.

https://twitter.com/RecNaturalesEC/status/1764820784797655192

Looking at the PDAC brochure (https://cme.org.ec/brochure-digital-pdac-2024/) I think I recognise:

Atico?

Lumina?

Addicknt - I didn't think it tongue-in-cheek.

Would have been a great opportunity to agree and then announce - on the day of talk - the IPA.

What better way to show Ecuador open for business and investment framework to encourage/protect business. With a globally significant Tier 1 asset.

Recent articles seem to suggest changes required to Constitution to enable the full protection framework that Noboa wants to offer / investors require? (I don't know the details).

Could be what is holding up improved IPA for Solgold?

Redknight - re: your reference to Porvenir drilling...

Isn't that the 2,610m of infill and extension diamond drilling referenced in the 1 Dec 2023 Porvenir RNS?

Holes 21-27?

I wouldn't worry about that Quady.

Solgold have been meeting their (relatively modest) minimum spend commitments.

It may actually help Solg - focus on the top 10/20 instead of trying to keep 80+ (including ex-CGP concessions) going...

... and force some JV/farm-out of those lower down the priority list?

The reopening of the mining cadastre is likely to have a bigger impact.

Management really need plans for Cascabel/Porvenir and priority regionals sorted.

That's par for the course now BBG - SOLG management have no interest in keeping the PIs/wider market informed.

(Although I do note that PDAC is now shown as an 'upcoming event' on the SOLG website).

Frustrating to not know what Noboa or Scott said. Would have been a great opportunity to announce an improved IPA or highlight a globally-significant Cascabel project.

But given the lack of RNS (or mention of these items in today's RNS), I guess it is more talk and grandstanding than action.

WHY do people continue to recommend posts that are obviously wrong?

BBG's "Due 40 days from revised pfs update... end of March"

I've pointed out in previous posts that the Technical Report NI 43-101 filing requirement is 45 days.

It even says this in the PFS RNS:

"Next Steps - SolGold intends to release a NI 43-101 technical report on Cascabel within 45 days of this release (the "Technical Report").

There is another Ecuador session at this year's PDAC, organised by Mining Chamber of Ecuador. On Monday.

Would be good if Noboa was there to discuss (or announce following earlier meetings) opportunities with potential developers/financiers.

www.pdac.ca/convention/programming/presentation-and-reception-room-program/sessions/presentation-and-reception-room-program/ecuador-world-mining-destination

"The Mining Chamber of Ecuador, in partnership with the Ecuadorian government, has fostered an environment conducive to foreign investment in the responsible mining sector. With a promising geological potential and a proactive government eager to encourage investment, Ecuador presents an excellent opportunity for investors with a long-term vision in the mining industry."

Thank you DBW. I was going to ask redknight what drilling he thinks is actually underway (but as he has most on filter he wouldn't have answered anyhow).

He seems to be in a parallel SOLG universe. Open to interpretation whether just ill-informed (Autobots, MSCI, drilling, close periods...) or deliberately misrepresenting for his own position.

Fort - can you explain what you posted earlier:

"A royalty deal or a sale or something has to happen before end of March for accounts purposes imho. Auditors will not sign off accounts without a clear idea on funding for next 6 to 12 months."

I thought the interim consolidated financial statements were 'unaudited'?

Indeed the 6-months statements to end-Dec'23, and 9-months to end-Mar'22, clearly state 'UNAUDITED'.

Isn't it just the full year (end-June) accounts that require an audit opinion?

i.e. nothing that 'forces' corporate action to take place before end-March?

To be honest SharketMare, my interpretation was:

I sell manure.

I'm confused by the RNS - so much for reducing headcount and costs.

And an intriguing comment by Scott:

"...as we navigate the dynamic landscape of the mining industry..."

To me - and my frustrated PI mind - it sounds like things are still up in the air.

Good link Adieuk32. I'd forgotten Scott had been so clear on the Kitco interview.

But it's the usual for Solgold. Over-promising and under-delivering. And not offering an explanation or apology.

Christ, why are SOLG tweeting about a 'uniquely compelling investment opportunity'?

Surely the required investment is all agreed and sorted, right Scott? SCOTT???