Member Info for NotMuchMoney

ToS - it was c£75m (in sterling terms, US$100m) and c3 years ago, but I get your point.

It has paid for Tandayama and other drilling in Cascabel, plus PFS and progressing further studies.

We HOPE significant progress made on PFS addendum items and optimisation studies. We await Scott to reveal more, in Feburary?

My previous post shows the date from the OFFICIAL FCA disclosures - 14/3/23.

www.fca.org.uk/publication/data/short-positions-daily-update.xlsx

Of course that could be the date XIB went below reportable threshold, and didn't fully close until recently (unlikely imv).

Checked FCA daily short positions and new entry for XIB - looks like they closed on 14th March 2023?!

Were they just VERY late in reporting it?

It's quite a funny tweet, as almost suggests those 'two large-scale mines' are Cascabel and Porvenir!

Bozi - I really don't mind what the first pillar is. As long as it is valued in hundreds of $billions, and mining is a very close 2nd!

Hi Fort

I've found the messaging re: PFS unclear and inconsistent.

It seemed that SOLG would be producing this themselves (as opposed to previous PFS taking best ideas from consultants/advisors and getting one of them to produce it).

But then late in Q4 SOLG suggested they were looking to appoint a mining consultant to produce this. (Apols, this is the evidence I can't clearly find now).

This struck me as odd given market - at least eager PIs - are expecting the PFS to land in Feb. And I would have thought would take a while to produce/review. So more like end-March.

I accept 'PFS3' could simply be releasing all the PFS addendum update work from 2022/2023. i.e. most of work done, and just need consultants to review / put name to...

... but we don't know.

Ortherncopper - you also missed redknight's statement that lack of management buys before/after AGM meant the PFS would be landing before 20th Jan...

"Given the 31 day constraint, I can only assume that the PFS3 is due by 20 January latest, i.e. 31 days after the AGM.

...

Otherwise you can be certain, with the depressed SP, that there would have been buys..."

Can anyone remind me when Scott / SOLG said they had appointed external consultants to produce the PFS?

I recall it was fairly recent, December? I've checked the MD&A and notes from presentations but now can't find reference to it?

Anyone know which date the January presentation was added to website?

https://solgold.com.au/investors/#corporatePresentation

I can't remember it being discussed (although I have a few on filter now!).

In particular this line:

"Negotiations of the IPA are advancing well"

It may well have been in presentations for a while. However including in the Jan-24 update suggests good progress still being made?

Addicknt / Eloro / Bozi - please consider using the Filter button. As we await further news this board just turns into arguments.

Eloro - personally I have nothing against posters expressing frustrations or considering a range of future events that may happen, for a balanced view.

However it is useful when these consider both the likelihood and the Pros and Cons for SOLG shareholders. Rather than just criticising current management and suggesting further bad news. Your posts of late have been focused on the latter.

Breadcrumbs from Scott.

He could have mentioned IPA renegotiation. Which consultancy is completing/reviewing the PFS. Reaffirmed a mid- or end Q1 delivery of PFS.

I would have expected the word "significant" in front of "lower capital costs". Given most are hoping for this to be around $1-1.5bn mark.

Oh well, could have been worse.

I think the 'in ground value' metric is difficult. Too much variation between assets (depth, mine type, jurisdiction etc.).

e.g. 1Mt CuEq near surface in Australia is going to go for more than 1Mt CuEq at depth (requiring a block-cave) in Ecuador.

That said, I appreciate Warintza is not at PFS stage yet. So can't directly compare various project financials.

One advantage Solaris do appear to have - at least against current Cascabel PFS - is the large‐scale, high‐grade open‐pit resource at Warintza Central. Suggested as the 'Indicative Starter Pit’.

Need Solgold to reflect an open-pit starter (Tandayama?) in an updated Cascabel PFS, reflecting other addendum benefits, and things will look better.

Thanks mog999 and TheItalian for the data-driven analysis.

Separately, not sure if you saw but I thanked you and addicknt for the updates on lack of replies from SOLG re: IPA/Govt relationship.

The posts didn't last long as whole threads have been removed due to the usual disruption here.

But, thanks again...

Hi TheItalian

"Did anyone here calculated by proxy what our valuation would be based on the Solaris transaction?"

Not that I've seen. I suspect the poster who likes to make unsupported statements as post titles has no idea on the readacross to a SOLG valuation.

I will make an attempt if I find some time, but not too close to the details of Warintza.

Shame SOLG hadn't secured $5m-$10m from Zijin Mining or similar to progress drilling at Helipuerto (Tinkimints).

Right next door to Warintza.

Flagged as a priority years ago. But little progress.

DBW - I think making Cuzzubbo the scapegoat is a little unfair.

Much of what he did would have been influenced by Nick / Board, even CGP (remember DC was the one to finally get the merger agreed and over the line).

Under DC there was actual exploration, and regional drilling! There was significant progress on studies at both Cascabel and Porvenir.

All this 'low-capex' PFS3 is basically the PFS Addendum being worked on under Darryl.

"the amount of **** he left behind" you refer to is arguably the same he inherited from Nick/Keith?

Of course, there was the failed raise. Who knows who did what, given the CFO resignation and rumours surrounding DC's court case. Same with the delays to merger Prospectus etc - who knows what really happened.

What I would say is CGP boys haven't been much better - e.g. how many months to update a simple website?! How much initial bluster and arrogance, Cascabel is ready for sale and no studies required.... only to U-turn and decide a new study is indeed the best approach?

Morning addicknt

Yes, SC clearly didn't have an easy task.

But two main frustrations for me:

* downsizing (mothballing) the company for 12 months didn't feel the way to go. Either we are an explorer or not?

* as usual with SOLG, communication has been terrible

- An open-ended Strategic Review used as an excuse to do what they want.

- No clear milestones or timescales.

- Regularly contradicting comms (e.g. no more studies needed on Cascabel is now 'we need another PFS'; Porvenir isn't right now becomes 'we're going to complete Porvenir PFS')

Scott has added confusion to 2023, not clarity.

I'm backing SOLG. But more because I believe in the assets (that someone else will want to acquire). Not Scott's capability to deliver.

Thanks Ortherncopper, good find.

I don't have the capacity (or to be honest, much motivation given state of play at SOLG) to work out potential implications.

However, I would hope that most of this is already reflected in recent Exploitation Agreement.

Also unclear whether the 'Public Private Partnership regime' applies to SOLG?

The 'emergency' proposal does suggest to me that Pres. Noboa is keen to act fast.

This could be very good - finally agree the updated IPA and accelerate o/s licences for pre-construction. Which in turn should make raising required funds easier, or kick-off bidding for Cascabel.

OR, it may show Noboa is not one to hang around; he may not be impressed with SOLG dragging heels and may want faster monetisation of Ecuador's resources. Time is the biggest risk here for me - SOLG may be waiting for improved capital market conditions / copper/gold supercycle etc... at the cost that exploration and development happening too slowly for Noboa's liking.

Thanks TheItalian, best wishes.

Thanks addicknt.

Thanks TheItalian.

You appear to be one of the few private investors who get replies from Solgold (my contacts / fellow investors simply don't get a response to emails and voicemails).

Could I therefore ask a favour...

Would you be able to ask Chris/Scott for an update on the IPA?

i.e. when is it anticipated to be signed?

Are there any potential blockers (hence the delay)? Or issues caused by SOLG missing their expenditure commitments under the previous IPA?

What is the relationship like with the new Govt / Ministry of Mining?

I'm conscious Solgold may not be able to (not want to) say too much. But hopefully it gets the point across that key milestones / progress needs to be communicated to investors more clearly.

Many thanks.