Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Knowing how slow my brokers are, are you sure it is not the Dec 2023 AGM notice?!

Shipright - are you talking about the Block Listing RNS? What is the source?

There is nothing filed on SEDAR re: 2024 AGM. Nor would I expect there to be in January.

Hi rcgl2

Completely agree with your post (my post was already an essay so I tried to cover with "Scott should be selling the benefits of the Specials more").

Some posters (with monikers very similar to mine!) have covered the Specials in previous years. I completely agree - still a fear from many Retail investors that these Specials are going to 'hurt' them.

I guess the danger is SOLG not wanting to show their hand - either strategic initiatives considered or any suggestion of wanting to get another investor on board - thereby further frutstrating BHP etc.

However, recent and historic RNSs are pretty clear about what the Board are dealing with:

"select shareholders may continue to vote in a manner detrimental to other shareholders".

On one hand SOLG say they are trying to repair relationships with BHP etc and on the other hand publicly highlight the issues these shareholders are causing. And then as usual come back encouraging the PIs to vote for them.

Wish they would make their mind up. Then explain the strategy and benefits to Retail.

SOLG Board need 75% to get Special Resolutions passed.

In particular disapplying pre-emption rights. i.e. being able to place a large chunk of shares with a 3rd party without offering share to BHP and NCM...

The special resolutions got 67% at 2023 AGM (from memory the highest in recent years?).

So another 8% of 'For' votes to find. c600m additional votes if similar numbers (BHP & NCM??) continue to vote against.

Could Sean Tufford have been instructed with this in mind? Scott has clearly flagged in 14 Dec RNS the issues caused by low Retail turnout in the past:

"It is very important for all shareholders to vote at the upcoming AGM. Historically, the voter turnout has typically been below 75%, given the vast majority of the retail shareholders do not vote. The retail vote is very important to ensure retail shareholders are properly represented and respected.

SolGold anticipates, similar to previous years, that select shareholders may continue to vote in a manner detrimental to other shareholders. For example, at the last three AGMs, such shareholders acting adverse to other shareholders voted against resolutions related to the disapplication of pre-emption rights, which hindered the Company's flexibility with respect to financing, which historically prevented SolGold from pursuing specific strategic initiatives that would have unlocked significant value for shareholders and counter a creeping takeover."

Makes sense. But +600m retail votes is a big ask. Scott should be selling the benefits of the Specials more, and the 'strategic initiatives' that would unlock significant value.

Become a Connector:

"This is a perfect opportunity for a retired person, or for anyone who likes the idea of a residual income that doesn’t require a lot of time."

"Our company is actively seeking friendly introductions, from anyone, anywhere in North America."

Hmmmm.

Https://tuffordgroup.com/what-we-do/

Metooooo - based on the spiel I'm undecided... appears like it was written by a 21yo on LSE or similar...

... HOWEVER, it does appear better than Scott/IR refusing to answer emails or calls.

Thanks SM. Happy New Year to you also.

Yes, I will try to use filter more in 2024.

A reason for not wanting to use Telegram is the lunatics like BBG!

Hopeful of a positive conclusion to SOLG saga this year.

BBG - I had posted "much of what Eloro posted is reasonable". And by this I meant items related to IPA.

Are we allowed different views on this board?

I assure you I've been invested for considerably longer than November. If you couldn't work that out, that probably explains your other knowledge gaps.

"The terms of the IPA are done" - I guess I missed the RNS. But I genuinely hope one arrives soon.

I'll leave you to your own little world. Filtered.

BBG - referring to me as "Notmuchbrains" reflects poorly on you.

My 31st Dec post was balanced and specific to the revised IPA.

What had I said that was incorrect? We have a new Govt since July Exploitation Agreement. Relationships with new Govt may well be ok. But surely reasonable to consider the risk of Govt wanting things moving faster, particularly given current IPA 'shortfall'?

Like you I want a positive outcome here. However I suspect that outcome may be less life-changing than I hoped for a few years ago.

As BN.C stated, surely the purpose of the board is for reasoned debate.

I post facts and try to keep it balanced - I've been slightly over-optimistic at times and slightly over-pessismistic at other times. But still more credible than many on here.

BBG - much of what Eloro posted is reasonable. Lots of your links are old.

The revised IPA has been under discussion for over a year now...

... Scott said a 'great chance' of the updated IPA arriving before Lasso went. Nothing has happened.

No clarity on this from the company in recent months and as 2023 ends. And when Solgold start going quiet on things it is usually bad news.

We've had no licencing / IPA news since the new Govt took the reins. Are they 'fully supportive' as Scott has indicated? Are they frustrated at the slow progress and Solgold not hitting the expenditure commitments under previous IPA? (And missing this by some way).

Are BHP / Jiangxi / others whispering in the ear of the Govt that they would be able to progress faster?

I will be relieved once a (positive) IPA addendum is signed with Solgold. I expect this to result in a significant re-rate to the SP. We'd be back-on-track with an updated PFS then showing the project is feasible, even on a go-it-alone basis if required.

The IPA may well be holding up any JV or sale news too. All feels very circular.

We're back to relying on the Govt gettings things done.

Agree addicknt. Although there are a number of others with no notes, or disputes, so not only Cascabel that is 'ok'.

An interesting comparison is to Neuva Union in Chile (0.37%, 16.7Mt Cu; vs. Cascabel 0.33%, 12.7Mt Cu).

Comment for Neuva Union is "Economic Viability Uncertain". Obviously potentially many differences (e.g. excludes value of Cascabel's Gold and Silver, relative depth and complexity, fiscal regimes etc.). Shows the importance of the revised PFS clearly showing it is viable, reduced capex and risk.

Could someone please explain to me why some investors would want to book tax losses at the end of a calendar year (rather than tax year)?

Would this be US/Canadian investors, for example?

Wary I've missed a (potentially very large!) trick.

Hi addicknt, mandate or not I get the impression Scott/CGP boys would have gone ahead with their plans regardless!

Note some voted for Scott not because they think he is the best CEO or has done an acceptable job, but simply the alternative was far worse.

The original (November 2021) IPA covered the period 2013-2023. End-2023 being when "the Exploration Phase of activities as defined under the mining law is anticipated to finish".

Since then we've had:

- During the 2023 fiscal year, SOLG began negotiations to amend the Exploration IPA to cover the exploitation and

production phase of the Cascabel project via an addendum to the IPA.

> This suggests spreading the 'intention to invest' US$430 million during exploration phase to include the exploitation and production phases too. i.e. SOLG knew weren't going to hit $430m just on exploration by 2023.

- In December 2022, SOLG submitted an application to amend the Investment Protection Agreement to align it with the exploitation agreement under negotiation and to obtain additional benefits provided by the government that were not available when the agreement was signed in 2021.

> So a formal submission a year ago to amend IPA in line with Exploitation agreement.

- The July 2023 Exploitation Agreement states "One of the key economic assumptions is that the Company expects a reduced corporate income tax rate of 20% (previously 25%) during the Project's life once the Government of Ecuador approves the amendment of the Investment Protection Agreement."

So, as we approach end-2023 has the Exploration Phase now legally finished?

The 2023 Annual Report flags the revised IPA as a key project milestone.

Frankly I'd expect a bit more clarity from the company re: the current position.

DBW - I have similar initial thoughts to Fortissimo...

If the PFS is with the intention to sell, reflect the whole resource and addendum/DFS additional items. Plus Tandayama.

High Capex but MEGA NPV. Then stick a 'for sale' sign out?

The phased approach PFS feels the opposite of a sale. It's saying 'this is small to begin with and we can progress this'.

(Of course, this may increase confidence hence SP, and easier to obtain finance. Hence prod interested parties to act?).

Have you had a chat with Scott recently, or is the 'excitement' perception based on recent RNSs?

DBW - re: your comment "We’ve had PFS’s before and they’ve never had the desired effect but I think this’ll be different."

This is the whole puzzle, why only now getting to a 'suitable' PFS?

We've had a revised capex-light PFS, which only targets c30% of resource.

Now we're planning a phased, super-low capex PFS.

I went through some of my notes from the April 2022 PFS update:

- SOLG were targetting an extra +$1bn NPV from the PFS-addendum and DFS

Lots of this work would have been completed during 2022. How much additional value is there, ready to incorporate into next PFS?

One of the statements about the DFS, which was planned for H2 2023:

"...the 'right sizing' of the project, with the objective of reducing the technical and execution risk..."

That sentence reminds me of what Scott has emphasised, over a year later.

I know studies take time, but do SOLG know exactly what an optimum PFS is?

But Quady, under a phased approach, won't the capacity be less?

And therefore the NPV will be (significantly?) reduced vs. the c$3bn post-tax NPV from original PFS?

i.e. actually a LOWER NPV to raise finance against?

And as others highlight, a terrible SP / MCap for any significant equity issue. (Unless a significant partner is willing to buy-in at a significant premium? But if so, why weren't they buying Berry Street or at these low levels?)

Ah, Blackrock again, with their

BBG - but we know that has not been (materially) happening for BHP and NCM - i.e. no TR-1s.

They have actually been diluted compared to previous years.