Member Info for Pbow

Could be Orthern but I stand by the fact this is something difficult to get wrong. If they hadn't drilled tam before maybe they could get outputs wrong... but they have. Would be seriously bad if they cant get that timeline right.

The presentation says "Ongoing assay results through H2 2025" means to me till the end of the year. They have at least 4 drills on site. Thats massively more than the original plan (at least in theory).

So id say we have the following from today.

* Pretty much nailed on what metal prices they will use for DFS.

* Seeming involvement of ENAMI in Northco - possibly to avoid the tax / fee for mining.

* confirmation that we are only using one site for TSF and that they have managed to increase capacity as its life is expanded. Has it expanded the throughput as well?

* looks like the Decline will start earlier than planned (which suggests additonal funding is close) - its well before the Franco construction deposit and we dont have the money for it now. So they must expect to raise cash soon.

Few other takeaways but I think the above are the main ones.

The most interesting thing is in the new presentation it mentions JVs with the national mining company in Northernco.

This is completely different from the RNS.

ExploreCo Defined: The Company's highly prospective southern concessions to be put in a separate company, creating a NorthCo (Cascabel + Concessions) and SouthCo (Porvenir + Concessions)

Rodney your point about a loss making TAM were wrong when you said and and wrong now. You clearly have no idea about costing construction - which is fine. If TAM isnt viable it would be cheaper to excavate the materials insitu from borrow pits than to pay for transport.

FTJNY ive always found in life you get answers by asking questions. Ive invested a six figure sum in the share. Its something I would be a bit annoyed to lose.

There are of course lots of positives. I think the guidance on the rates they will use in the DFS is very promising.

I hadn't appreciated the length of the Decline until this presentation so its great that they will be starting it soon.

The presentation suggests they can start building the TSF without the permit. If thats the case its brilliant.

Them massively expanding the TAM drilling campaign suggests that the results in hand are good. (Prob the best bit of the presentation).

There is another bit in there which is potentially mental and good. But im reading up on that more first.

Given they are working on the DSF at present I think its pretty nailed on the metal prices being used for that are.

2,644/oz Au 4.31/lb Cu 29.94/oz Ag

They have the permit for the Decline Fort.

Did you apologise for what you said to me? Did you f. You said I was taking as gospel what a second party had said (someone who worked for the company). Guess what here we are and my source was right yours was wrong.

Jack not sure if you are still obsessed with Filo check page 19

Https://staticcdn1.gowebcasting.com/documents/files/events/event_00004361_tUiYsI82.pdf

The presentation itself.

Cant really be bothered Stas - point remains it didnt happenm

We are discussing in the Telegram group.

The key questions for me is how the TSF will cope with the expected output. Based on the PFS there is a problem if we are only doing one of the on site TSFs. Also based on that presentation its Cachaco TSF. Not Parambas. "The facility will have a maximum capacity of approximately 60 Mt with the facility only suitable for use at lower throughputs (i.e., ≤ 12 Mtpa) as such this facility could be employed as a starter facility for the early phases of operations." Is that throughput sufficient with TAM, is the capacity sufficient?

What permits do they need to build the TSF and are they the same as the ones to operate them.

What permits do they need at the port - and are we responsible for upgrades (if any) to the port for export

The presentation was poor on permitting. Im leaning towards the stars being about the granting of permits. But how do they then build the TSF before the permit (links to question above).

Big question remains what are we doing with electricity.

TAM results need to be above cut off point only. The cut-off grade for potentially open pit mineable material was calculated at 0.16% CuEq using a copper equivalency factor of 0.683. Anything above that is fine. Obviously higher the better. No explanation for the late results was poor. No mention of the delays with explorco / southco. Aka silent on the tax which has been massively in the news in the last week in Ecuador.

I appreciate I said I wasnt going to post again but feel like I must quote this from Stas20 and his myriad posts where he was pumping and then seemingly dumped.

"I have now received confirmation from Dan that he is fine with me sharing the content of the email.

I won’t post it verbatim, but here’s the main gist of what he said, as accurately as possible:

Dan emphasised that with so many significant changes underway, they’re being cautious to only announce things they are confident they can actually deliver. On the NAV question, he noted that mining companies don’t typically publish PFS numbers based on spot commodity prices - especially for projects that are years from production. Instead, they rely on long-term broker consensus pricing, which is he admits higher than the assumptions used in the 2024 PFS, but still below current spot prices. The rationale is that high prices tend to incentivise new supply, which eventually brings prices back toward equilibrium.

Importantly, he has now confirmed that in their next corporate update, they will be including revised PFS numbers that reflect these higher long-term pricing assumptions - so that should give us an updated view soon."

Where was the updated NAV that Dan promised you Stas? (Above post 24th June) multiple similar posts around same time. Absolute fantasist.

Cheerio again.

Your wish is my command Rodney - ill stop posting. Cheerio.

Jack take a calculator. Input 5.13 and divide by 3 and see what you get.....

I am happy to confirm that Jack is illogical Rodney.

Today he is saying we are being bought by First Quantum.

On the 29th of August he said Freeport were buying us.

On the 28th of August he said "A factual statement: Vujcic cannot buy shares at the moment because he is involved in discussions regarding the sale of assets and or the entire company"

Note the word factual above.... not opinion, fact.

On the 27th of August he said "BHP is behind the short. No doubt about it."

On the 26th of August "The signs that point to a friendly takeover of Solgold by BHP:"

On the 15th of August "Tandy is huge! An absolute monster." By the 28th of August "Current TAm drilling is a smoke screen. No one cares, nor does BHP."

He is a complete moron, posts absolute nonsense its frankly pathetic.,

Oh and you are also missing out that the production has come forward a year which in itself will have a positive impact on the NPV valuation - but you would have to understand how an NPV works (which Jack I appreciate is beyond you).

Well clearly the one you are using is because 5.13 billion divided by 3 billion is 171p not 173p - hence wrong.....

You also arent taking into account any additional build costs or the impact of the Franco funding deal hence it being wrong.

Its also not taking into account the impact of the TAM deposit so yet another example of it being wrong.

It also doesnt take into account the impact of increased silver prices as that isnt included in the PFS sensitivity analysis so yet another reason its wrong.

Jack I couldnt care less about the title of the thread. Its demonstratabley wrong, but thats the case with pretty much everything you post.