Member Info for NotMuchMoney

(and if the Board stays quiet, that's the sign for me that LTHs have been jettisoned for a quick CGP-led windfall)

Let's see what happens.

Yes, time to see what the assets are REALLY worth to the market.

Solgold board couldn't wish for better metals demand...

... just a shame they still haven't secured CIPA.

Time to release newsflow Dan...

Hi Pbow. I'd seen the falling Ecuador risk premium:

https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/negocios/riesgo-pais-ecuador-vuelve-niveles-no-vistos-desde-2018/

Anything specific politically? In particular, anything that is likely to get the CIPA executed?

Look at the share prices for SOLG and GGP (adjusting for GGP's 20-to-1 consolidation):

c26p vs. c26p

One company is worth £0.8bn and one £3.5bn, but the share price is the same.

That's not to knock GGP - they have made incredible progress and have a producing and expanding asset at record gold prices whilst Havieron is constructed.

But since 2020, shareholders have similar returns.

Not sure I follow why the RNS needs to be subtle, when the letters themselves are explicitly non-binding.

But agree the choice of words in the RNS was interesting.

Let's see what the next few days brings.

Sorry ProfitSniffer, whilst I see (and highlighted earlier) the difference in wording in the RNS, I don't see how the underlying letters themselves are materially different.

Only difference I see in BHP letter is being explicit in being able to trade in shares before any vote on JCC bid, and also being able to agree to a higher (alternative) offer?

ProfitSniffer - ALL of the letters of intent were non-binding. And all say "may change at our/my discretion".

I really don't know why the 12th Dec RNS said "non-binding letter of intent.... indicating its CURRENT support" for BHP,

but just "letter of intent ... in support..." for Newmont, Maxit, Mather.

Pbow - personally I have no problem with the first Franco NSR being worse than others (or a 'real stinker' as you call it).

Need to keep the streamers 'keen', so they commit future funds. Also a carrot to encourage a takeover so majors buy some of the NSR back.

I can't recall gold and copper prices at the time, but pretty sure the original $100m deal looks so good because of recent metals appreciation.

Franco still keen to talk up the asset at least.

Yes Pbow - royalty/streaming companies aren't stupid.

A partial buy-back is good for all parties - majors feel they are getting a better deal paying some off, streaming company gets a decent return on funds whilst encouraging bigger players to take over projects and accelerate / increase scale of stream.

I'm pretty sure Franco / Osisko didn't write the NSRs on the assumption Solgold would take to production. They want a major to take the project over so they are not waiting until mid-2030s for Solgold to get into production.

Everyone can get their slice of the massive pie. That includes shareholders, once JCC confirm bid and force interested parties to decide on their bid levels.

Just how much 'cream' do the Majors want?

Do they expect Tier 1 assets to be prepped and served to them how they wish?

How about they put up their own risk capital and explore. Don't want to? Fine, pay a decent premium for the efforts of the explorer/developers. Or miss out, then look a bit stupid when complaining not enough copper is coming on stream.

Fort - under the UK Takeover Code, doesn't a competing bidder, after announcing a firm intention to bid, get 28 days to complete due diligence before confirming their offer?

Also the Takeover Panel may consent to an extension, if Solgold were the request this.

I believe there is plenty of time for counter-bids. Indeed, we may (and hopefully will) get months of back-and-forth.

First things first though, we need a confirmed offer by JCC before 26th Dec.

Also:

In addition, reforms to the mining law introduced on 28 August 2025 revised the concession expiry regime including provisions related to both fee payments and exploration expenditure requirements. At present these changes do not result in automatic forfeiture, and the Company retains the ability to maintain operational flexibility, including making payments (with interest) if considered prudent. SolGold continues to engage with legal advisors and industry associations as the legislative and judicial frameworks evolve, ensuring shareholder value and strategic objectives remain protected.

Addicknt - there are some titbits on Supervision and Control Fee in the Annual Report, including the audit opinion.

From Note 28(c):

In June 2025, the Ecuadorian mining regulator (ARCOM) introduced a new “supervision and control fee” applicable to all mining concessions. SolGold

considers the levy unconstitutional and has filed legal challenges alongside other industry participants. The Group made a one-off payment of US$0.2

million in July 2025 relating to the Cascabel concession under protest to avoid delays in permitting and Investment Protection Agreement processes.

At 30 June 2025, no accrual had been recognised for the supervision and control fee in relation to the Group’s Ecuadorian tenements as management,

supported by external legal advice, considers it is not probable that these amounts will ultimately be payable and that any payments are contingent

on future events.

Concessions across the portfolio remain in good standing. If challenges to the levy were unsuccessful and fees remained unpaid, there is a risk of

caducity that could lead to relinquishment of concessions and material impairment of Regional E&E assets. The Company does not expect this

outcome, remains actively engaged with government and stakeholders, and continues to progress plans for its flagship Cascabel project and the

proposed ‘ExploreCo’ of its regional exploration portfolio.

Addicknt - yes, whilst Cascabel fees have been paid to keep this licence in good standing, Solgold have made legal challenge on other concessions.

And I agree - I doubt we could pay it, even with a large number of concessions being handed back (virtually all cash ring-fenced for Cascabel).

Absolutely think this has impacted CIPA and ExploreCo plans.

I think material news that the company should have commented on, rather than a few lines in annual report.

Sid - how are management 'hiding' hole 58 results?

They have been RNSd (detail 15th August, referenced again 17th Sep and 13th Oct).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if JCC obtain an extension.

Because they may argue they are awaiting PRC outbound direct investment clearance - and also because it would be suitably 'disruptive'!

I disagree on last 6 months newsflow. Still insufficient.

The missing items are CIPA, ExploreCo, ESIA.

Plus a revised PFS (I know Solgold are fluid on committed dates, and ongoing drilling at TAM means can't finalise a DFS, but something could have been produced).

TAM has helped de-risk Alpala. But CIPA would de-risk additional investment, and ExploreCo avoids complete reliance on one asset.

International tender in 2026 (Source: The Northern Miner on X).

More garbage AI at 21:18

'Collaboration'! It's basically everyone saying they'd sell to Jiangxi!

At this rate of human evolution we won't need our brains after a few generations...

Please THINK before posting rubbish.

Fort - I think Solgold should get a revised mine plan and PFS out that can be directly compared to Solaris.

If it is so devalued relative to peers, show this to the market (as if they are dummies).

Personally I'm not sure it is as simple as Alpala is "several times bigger", given Warintza open pit design and higher throughput vs. Alpala. But with better comms we'd have a better idea of relatively value.