Member Info for Pbow

Ill give you some real world examples or how costing in Construction works.

1) if you use AIS switchgear there will be a huge CAPEX saving over GIS switchgear. So obviously everyone uses AIS... no they dont because the OPEX is significantly more.

2) someone may suggest using a different material for the construction of a building to save significant amounts of money. However that new material increases the U- Value which means the insulation goes down. That means in a hot climate you might need more actual chillers and certainly more cooling. Meaning your capex might increase and your opex defo will. In a cold climate you might need more heating- same effect.

3) MW cables made of copper are expensive so someone suggest Al cables. They are cheaper but need to be thicker to provide the necessary conductivity. That could impact on the building size

Ultimately they will do the most cost efficient thing - they wont drill TAM if its not economic to do and if they did they should be sacked.

Just to be clear. The PFS doesn’t say “mine TAM anyway.” It says: if TAM becomes a mine, its waste rock cheapens the TSF; if not, you default to borrow pits. No one will open TAM purely for rockfill unless that earthworks package is provably cheaper than borrow pits—which is unlikely once you add pre-strip, haul, and rehab.

Note that the PFS was written by a qualified person. The terms qualified person has a specific meaning in terms of a PFS.

If you were to say that using the Cachaco site as the TSF impacts the economic viability of TAM that would be correct. It would 100% improve it because the waste material now has a value whereas it didnt when the coastal plain sites were being considered. This however does not for a second change the fact that if TAM is not economically viable they wont drill it!!!!

The stupid thing about all this is 1) you clearly know nothing about what you are arguing - I get that as I am well aware of what your actual job is - this isnt your field. This is my field and I promise you what you are saying is completely wrong.

2) TAM almost certainly looks viable (in fact more than viable) so the point is moot anyway.

Rodney this is somewhat tiresome.

Let's go through your examples in the same order. Ill try and use layman terms.

1) This pit provided engineered rockfill. This is completely different to mine waste rock which TAM would provide and is required at Cachaco. It needs to meet certain specs and would be more expensive. This example also states "The open pit’s economics were not the driver. " that has a completely different meaning that not economical.

2) Rock sources are within 300 metres of haul routes, minimising costs. This is not the case at Cachaco. Rock is expensive to transport.

3) "The open pit was never solely about value but rather about rock, haulage and early site infrastructure that enable the cave’s tailings footprint.". So never solely about value.... would they have done it if it wasnt economic? Of course not.

4) "The transition plan calls for re-purposing the open pit as a waste and development rock storage facility." They have a purpose for the pit which increases its value. It does not suggest that it is not uneconomic.

Now for Cachaco. They dont need engineered rockfill. They can obtain it from borrow bits near the location removing the need to transport it. If TAM is economical then using the waste material brings down the cost as the transport will be cheaper than excavating borrow pits.

Its all part of a cost analysis to work out the cheapest/ most efficient way of building something. The PFS is CLEAR that TAM only helps the TSF if it is viable. "This option has poor embankment to storage efficiency (i.e., large embankment volumes) and therefore its economics are improved if the Tandayama Americana open pit is developed which would provide lower cost construction materials." If TAM is not viable it would be stupid to excavate it as the construction materials would be higher cost than the alternative! This is simple construction economics which ive done for the last 20 odd years (im a Quantity Surveyor by trade and have moved up the ladder).

Unfortunately, I dont have a crystal ball.

I assume its people just hoping for something good.

They are the ones already announced.

Https://orroyalties.com/or-royalties-announces-more-positive-developments-on-select-assets/

To be fair i think they are the clever ones. Id love to be the last to move im sure they will eventually be able to name their price.

Its the place its moving to thats not clear. There are two places on Google maps with the same name.

Https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTE_gMoy_lLL7pVQDXXdWA3VqhbyI2FsDVlGR8lopX__T_WWRCF81tFle22&s=10

Thanks for the nice comments :-)

To be clear I am positive about the share - i think thats illustrated by investing a 6 figure amount in the company and to be clear its more than 100k that ive spent (never mind what its worth).

I will only post my opinions and facts. If they are positive they are positive, if they are negative they are negative.

Here is the news piece of Santa Cecilia. Its in Spanish. The channel its on is one of the top 2 most popular in Ecuador.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DrRztEyr0dXg&ved=2ahUKEwiq2cHF7dKPAxUxBtsEHTcQHbcQwqsBegQIExAF&usg=AOvVaw0JyYfBm1iKVN3B-5jp0v9-

Solgolds new community guy is interviewed. There are 310 people in the community. There are 91 families of which 90 have agreed to move. 50% of people living there dont have running water. New location is nearer to the Transversal Fronteriza (Frontier Transverse) if ive located the correct place (E10 highway).

As of the news report I watched 1 week ago the move of Santa Cecilia has not been finalised. 90 out of 91 families have agreed to move. So 1 short (of course could have changed in a week) They are going to Palo Amarillo when it happens apparently.

Looking at the presentation again they are saying they are doing most of the declines before the Permits are received (CP for construction deposit). As per the PFS thats 410m USD. They have to buy a load of land and move the town. Let's say all in they have to spend 400 million prior to receiving the Construction deposit is recieved.

They need a good chunk of this before Q2 of 2026 and the majority by Q2 2027. Surely they have some sort of plan for obtaining this money? Q2 2026 isnt that far away.

Rodney trying to explain the same thing multiple times is tiring. Read the PFS!!! I literally do construction estimates for a reasonable % of my job. Well I more oversee other people doing them now. The people who did the PFS did a AACE Class 4 estimate for the costing. I understand how they work, because Ive done many!° The DFS will be a Class 3 one. You will do them to make the cost as low as possible.

In terms of Stas.

Who was right him or me? Me

Did they update the NPV? No

Was he rude to me when I said what I was told? Yes

There were two declines in the PFS Fort. Access and conveyor.

Just to further illustrated the point Rodney note what it says about the other option they had for the source of materials.

"Embankment construction material would be sourced from borrow pits, spillway excavations, excavation for the process plant construction, excavation for the portals and from underground development waste. "

Note the additional options in that option? Why do you not think they are used in the selected option.... because the cost of transport is such (they are further away) that its cheaper to excavate from borrow pits on site.

Rodney you are completely missing the point. Read the PFS it is very very very clear on the matter.

The chosen TFS is Cachaco as per today's presentation. This is what it says.

"Embankment construction material would be sourced from borrow pits and spillway excavations. This option has poor embankment to storage efficiency (i.e., large embankment volumes) and therefore its economics are improved if the Tandayama Americana open pit is developed which would provide lower cost construction materials. Further design work is planned for this TSF option as the viability of the Tandayama Americana open pit is assessed. "

If TAM is not viable then it will be cheaper to get any material required (that cant be provided from the other mentioned sources) from borrow pits than to excavate it and transport it.

Will be good to see how the DFS will look with the new metal rates they reference in the presentation and adding in TAM. Seemingly only one TFS so the only additional capex would be TAM itself and a bit more infra. Possibly a little bit more or less on the decline now its moved (no idea if its moved closed or further).

Yeah could be. Ive had in mind it might be something like they messed up the quarantine of the samples.

The EMANI references are really interesting to me. Im thinking they will come in with a small percent in exchange for relief from the mining tax. Then when cascabel is built or more likely sold that money will take those concessions forward.

Thanks for the medical analysis, Jack. Shame your insight into mining isn’t half as sharp, you’d finally get something right about Solgold. We can live in hope and pray for a miracle.