The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
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.
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.