Member Info for Pbow

Please note I have no idea if Auranias figures are correct. I had a go at calculating it for solgold but put it in the too difficult box

This press release suggests your figures are wrong Rodney

https://aurania.com/aurania-reports-on-arcom-announcement-in-ecuador/

I do agree that there shouldnt be a problem with Cascebel. Other than maybe short term cash flow but I am worried about exploreco. I think Porvenir will be fine mind. Too far advanced.

Im very happy you have emailed the company. Let's see what the reply is.

You have seen my posts for 24 hours its somewhat funny that you can refer to a recurring issue. But fill your boots.

I think you will find I disagree with plenty of people on this forum - ive been called a ramper and a detamper. Mostly I respect the other opinion when its well substantiated. I think Add can verify we have had disagreements ive always found his position well supported so I challenge it but thats it.

Im not imparting superior wisdom - other than I was told that the CFO said they couldnt do it when I asked the exact same question months ago (prob a year ago today actually). When I ask a question to someone who should know the answer I usually accept it rather than keep asking. Im giving you the answer I received - if you wish to keep asking fill your boots.

Again if you think you are right and the CFO and the board aren't replying then write to the regulator.

I'll note you've said all sorts of nonsense about me, so don't give me this holier than thou stuff. Red flag this etc.

If they aren't replying to you one would suggest they think you are wrong. In which case write to the Regulator - i shared the link the other day - I can find it if you like.

I am reading which is why I am responding. I am just not agreeing with you, which is a completely different issue.

Again if you think its a fundamental issue write to them, ask them to consult their legal counsel who is a chap based in London. One would hope he is well versed on market regulations in London.

Clearly im not listening as you aren't speaking.....

That aside.... if it makes a huge difference write a letter to the PO Box I provided or an email to the email address I did. Impart your superior wisdom on the board of directors who could actually do something about it.

Hannam and partners ironically given your view as to the power of NPV have a lower NPV of US$3.5bn - yet a higher target price.... go figure.

"Red Cloud Securities, who cover SolGold directly, referenced both the PFS-based $3.2B NPV and upside case scenarios based on stronger metal pricing in their recent notes."

Didnt Red Cloud use a NPV of 3.8 billion. Would suggest your workings are somewhat out if they used spot rates......

Ill be helpful

PO Box 7059

Cloisters Square PO

Perth, WA 6850

Australia

investors@solgold.com.au

Again the current CFO apparently told our former IR person that they would have to update all if they updated part. I see no reason why Sean would have lied about this.

The sensitivity analysis was included in the PFS which was issued to the market. Anyone with half a brain can look at it and work out what the impacts are associated with higher commodity costs. What they cant do is see what the impact is associated with the increased costs and the Franco Deal.

Note for the months that the sensitivity analysis was in the investor presentation it had zero impact on the share price.

Again if you think its so important write to the board. Telling us ad infinitum is going to make zero impact. So tell them. I imagine they will tell you what the CFO said and that it would be a waste of time and effort. But if not great, we get an updated NPV which will have zero impact on the price. Because everyone knows there is a monster mine there. The issue is the missed deadlines and the significant negative cashflow in the early years which will hopefully be fixed by TAM.

We could massively increase the NPV by drilling and updating the PFS every 6 months. Personally Id rather get on with actually creating real value and get to a position where we (or others) can build it.

The way to get the value up is to start hitting targets. get the money in from Franco, get the licenses and he have a valuable project ready to go that people will want to buy

Cash its section 5.1 of the Contract with Franco you can find it on SEDAR+ the one they are missing is the one I posted.

We may also be missing e which is "[Redacted – Commercially Sensitive Information – Condition Precedent in Favour of the Purchasers for Second Installment]."

Given I dont know what it says clearly dont know if it has been met or not.

I appreciate you are knew to the share and possibly arent aware of the nightmare with the PFS - we are on the second one. There was a complete mess up as they forgot to translate it to French as well. We do not need the PFS nightmare to repeat we need a FS and tick off a CP for tranche 3.

If the sensitivity analysis added so much value why wasnt it included in multiple presentations previously? The whole presentation deck changed and clearly the new management wanted to focus on other things. Tranche 2 was supposed to be Q2 its clearly not happening, Tranche 3 was supposed to be H2 almost certainly not happening. EISA was supposed to be October clearly not happening. FS was supposed to be H2 clearly not happening.

An updated NPV thats wrong adds no value. We will get a correct NPV when they complete the FS. Id much rather them focus their efforts on that given it is a CP for tranche 3 than satisfy someone who just bought a few shares in the company wants and desires.

Anyway if you think its so important again write to the FSA and complain or write to the board. They have a post box in Perth and various people have people on the board contact details. I would suggest that would be far better than posting ad infinitum on here about it.

No you arent correct "If I am correct the gold stream was already modelled in the 2024 PFS." The Franco Osaka deal came months later.

Again I know the price of Commodities went up. But if you update part you should update all. If you look at the latest presentation there is a host of new elements that werent in the PFS. This is aside from any inflation / escalation issues. They need to finish the FS not mess about with other stuff.

I never said no CPs had been met CP. I actually think all but one have (well without knowing re the redacted ones).

"the Seller shall have delivered to the Purchasers evidence of completion of all geotechnical drilling and, as applicable, other studies (including indigenous studies, hydrogeological studies, acid rock drainage studies and biodiversity studies) required for the finalization of the location of, and plans with respect to, the plant and the tailing storage facilities for the Project sufficient for a minimum of 10 years of operation, prepared by a “Qualified Person” for purposes of NI 43-101 or a “Competent Person” for purposes of the JORC Code, in each case to the satisfaction of the Purchasers’ Agent, acting reasonably"

They are doing geotechnical drilling as we speak which will be completed in roughly 3 months after it commenced in May with results received a month later. (Management Discussion and Analysis amongst others.) There are 12 CPs (with subdivisions) they seem to have met 11. The AIPA has satisfied a key precedent for release of the second tranche but its not all the CPs - thats why it said Key not all.

That's a very erudite comment Jack - care to expand on what I said that is incorrect? Feel read to read the various investor presentations referenced along with the Franco contract which clearly sets out the majority of the Cps for the various tranches.

Thank you for the kind words NotMuchMoney.

What Im looking for from solgold is concrete action. The reason there is such a disconnect between the asset and the market capitalisaiton is simple and multiple in my opinion. But primarily the only things Solgold have ever really demonstrated a talent in is missing deadlines. Here is a list of ones they look like they are about to miss.

1) The exploreco announcement that they promised though to be fair I would consider what has happened to be out of their control. (RNS dated 4 March 2025)

2) They should have received the tranche 2 of the franco money but havent met one of the CPs which has seemingly pushed to the end of the year. (November investor presentation amongst others) meaning they had to sell the treasury shares. We would have literally had to turn off the lights by now.

3) They should be submitting the EISA in October - wont happen as we wont have the TSF sorted. (January investor presentation amongst others).

3) They should be getting tranche 3 of the franco money in H2 of this year almost certainly wont happen because we need to complete the FS, and probably wont submit the permits. Its also clear we are making zero headway on electricity provision which is another CP. (November Investor presentation amongst others + Franco contract)

The above are just key milestones they are failing on at present. So my preference is that the management work on the above rather than waste time updating the NPV based only on increased commodity prices because it will be wrong for the following reasons.

1) It will not reflect the gold sold to Franco. Nor the reduced capital required from the companies balance sheet.

2) It will not reflect the increased costs from the May presentation (which look significant).

3) It will not even be a fair reflection of the upside regardless of the rates used - be they head the ball ones using spot price, losing even more credibility (if they have any left) or realistic future rates because the PFS only reflects 18% of M&I resources and 30% of contained metal.

Let the company focus on the important stuff not messing around with stuff that adds zero value. I appreciate though that this seems to be an impossible task for our management. But here is hoping that Dan and Paul manage to achieve what others have failed on.