Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video here.
Wow. Who needs the Jerry Springer Show when you have the Solgold board.
I had thought the DC situation had been resolved quietly via employment tribunal? DC either holds a grudge and wants more, or destabilising on behalf of others?
I never had an issue with DC (other than the failed fund raise, which is unclear precisely what took place and who to blame).
The 'Plan A begets Plan B' approach seemed decent to me. He came in with some decent planning and organisation skills, with a roadmap to Cascabel and Porvenir PFSs...
...whilst importantly continuing to develop the regionals.
The CGP-led 'sale at all costs' approach, with hindsight, has left SOLG very exposed. Appreciate the economic and political uncertainty over 2023 but still, don't leave SOLG so exposed.
P.S. interesting that independents also (in addition to some PIs on here) took exception to Scott's pay and option awards.
Addicknt - re: voting rights I've never got clarity.
Anyhow, going to stop posting now, as whenever I post the price seems to drop.
Hi addicknt, they aren't Treasury.
11 May RNS states no Treasury shares held.
They are held in a subsidiary - Solgold Canada inc.
DBW - when you say "in the company’s hands" this is the same company that has materially delayed (Alpala) and cancelled (Porvenir) previous PFSs?
I'm not suggesting SOLG will miss Q1 for PFS3. Mainly because they aren't doing much else. But I don't think completely unreasonable for others to flag the risk of SOLG pivoting and changing the plan again in Q1?
Hi Bozi, agreed. What I was trying to highlight was that I consider IPA to be more a significant event than another PFS.
I wouldn't however assume that SOLG is doing a great job on IPA. They have, depending on view, either over-committed spend at Cascabel when signing IPA, OR grossly under-developed and underspent.
I know an addendum has been proposed and discussed for a long while - but another obstacle SOLG appear to have put in front of themselves.
DBW - PFS is a secondary milestone.
Revised IPA is due first. How many times have the company said this is anticipated during 2023; a 'good chance' this would land before Lasso left I think Scott messaged to you (or another PI).
We're still waiting.
I know SharketMare flags this, but this is key to reassure the market, and potential partners/buyers, we have a fully supportive Govt that want Cascabel built. (And built fast, not just drifting on further studies and phased approaches).
Hi DBW
I find that comment from Bob VERY odd:
- he'll know volumes are low and hence even a 0.5% short could easily be used to drive price down
- it would frankly take him 30secs to check the UK-listed shorts, given London is primary listing
His comment may explain why a Canadian company put the short on the UK listing...
... but to say "I don't know anything about..." - I'd flipping hope Maxit know that XIB are shorting SOLG!
Current MCap is c50% of historic capitalised exploration and evaluation expenditure.
I think the Lassonde curve underestimates the size of the trough from Feasibility to Development!
The question is, what do XIB 'know' that caused them to open their short and keep pushing down at these levels?
A dangerous game to keep open at 7.5p given the SR and potential upside.
What a ridiculous year.
Quady - SOLG are never that specific; where have they said 5 remain interested?
The only related statements I can recall are from 25 Oct update:
"Over 20 active CAs in place with over 5 site visits already conducted"
"and over 5 groups have already completed site visits with a number of follow-up visits being scheduled"
So:
- "over 5" means more than 5
- 20 confidentiality agreements remain active, so no idea how many of these are still interested
Smickster - FCA data with today's date shows it at 0.5%?
BBG - I think you are misunderstanding Enterprise Value.
It just adjusts MCap for existing debt/cash resources etc.
It DOES NOT reflect a value of in ground resources ($100bn+).
A Discounted Cashflow basis has two key parts:
i) a discount rate - to reflect cost of funding/interest as well as any risk premium - i.e. additional return due to riskiness by country
ii) cashflows, i.e. projected revenues to discount back - sales less expenses, as modelled under mine production profile and grades
How do you get to an EV of $3bn?
Www.fca.org.uk/publication/data/short-positions-daily-update.xlsx
Still showing open at 0.5%.
Also as a shareholder I would expect to be able to see a list of all concessions held (original SOLG + new CGP)...
... which are the priorities, which are in the development pipeline and which are grassroots etc.
I notice c$4m of exploration expenditure was written off in 2023 for 'concessions that were surrendered'.
Where, and why?
Constant guesswork at the moment.
From MD&A, covering June-22 to June-23:
Cascabel c$30m
Regionals c$16m
All very well having these incredible concessions. A reason lots have invested here. But do something with them - a paultry $16m over a year shows how little has been progressed...
... hence the 'recycled' RNSs with previous drilling or rock sample results.
Https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05449516/filing-history
James Doyle no longer Company Secretary from 30th November. Lasted 3.5 months.
Conscious there were joint company secretaries (Steven Wood, James Doyle) for an interim period, maybe to support a busy AGM notice period.
But still, more odd news from Solgold.
A fair point about the buy-back Fortissimo. But the 'super major comes along and takes on ENSA' has been suggested for years, and look where we are.
By the way, I think Scott and Co have done a terrible job. In terms of strategy, activity and comms. A mess.
However, I consider the risks of voting against the Board this year to outweigh the benefits. They need some more time - for macro picture to improve, Ecuador Govt agreements/licenes and to land a Cascabel study the market believes SOLG can support. Only then will the potential buyers be concerned enough to act.
Just a few thoughts on NSRs as these have been mentioned again:
- these funds are usually ring-fenced so can't be used for general exploration/drilling. Of course there are the ex-CGP shares to sell, which could be used for regional drilling, but not at c8p
- the 'true' cost of the Franco and Osisko deals is greater than the headline 1%/0.6%. Because SOLG continue to reduce the mine design/capacity (low capex) there are lower volumes and hence lower royalties; the contracts protect FNV/Osisko from this by increasing the royalty rates. I believe this has already been highlighted - Franco would be up to 1.5%/2% by now?
To me, barring shareholders shooting ourselves in the foot at the AGM, the next key milestone is an agreed IPA.
Not the PFS, (which of course would reflect any revised fiscal agreements), but the Govt putting pen to paper.
Solgold have stated that they think the new administration will be supportive. Scott suggested a revised IPA had a good chance of landing before Lasso left. Well, that is a few weeks ago now Scott - so how are things progressing with the new supportive regime?
Scott also suggested (Denver Gold interview I think) that political risk was the main item putting off prospective partners/buyers. Get that IPA signed, with more investor protection and importantly improved financial terms, and the whole Cascabel proposition changes.
It's been a long wait. Time for SOLG to show they have been making progress behind the scenes.
SharketMare - I'd ignore the Recommends.
The reasoned/factual posts don't tend to get them.
Only the rampy, dreaming or insulting ones.
Anything getting 18 or 19 tick ups would either be major news or, more likely, technical issues with the website.