Member Info for Pbow

Reading one of the links it references a paper that has been done. Cant access it (not sure why - dont even have the option to pay for it).

Anyway you can see the font cover and interestingly it has a start date for Construction for Cascabel in 2026 - there is a footnote that it got the dates from the government. It says spend to date 329 million USD and spend to complete 4,168 million. It got the figures from this report https://contenido.bce.fin.ec/documentos/Estadisticas/Hidrocarburos/ReporteMinero042025.pdf which show construction starting in 2027 - clearly one of them is wrong.

Https://www.lahora.com.ec/economia/Ecuador-necesita-5.000-millones-mas-al-ano-en-inversion-para-crecer-exportar-y-generar-empleo-20250616-0031.html

https://www.elcomercio.com/opinion/editorial/ecuador-afinar-estrategia-atraer-inversion-extranjera/

You said "is disingenuous. No one is saying the PFS should be rebuilt around spot - but when prices have risen 50–90% across key metals, and the company previously published sensitivity tables, you don't get to argue it's irrelevant now."

You are saying the PFS (NPV) should not be rebuilt around spot then did it.

Other things that the FS will need to take into account. A much larger TSF, a central production facility (which seems to be upscaled), Extensive underground linear infrastructure. None of which was allowed for in the PFS. Along with the removal of circa 10% of the gold through the Franco deal. This is clearly why the company arent doing it now - they are preparing the FS which will be issued at the end of the year (hopefully).

In the meantime if anyone wants to see the impacts of higher commodity prices they can either a) read the PFS where its clearly outlined, or look at the current presentation (which may incidentally give an indication of the rates that Solgold will use in the FS - though this is conjecture on my part and I do find the rates they are using somewhat odd).

Also as one final point. If you read the investor presentation carefully you will see that the impact of higher commodity prices is still included - though the ones they have used are frankly strange.

Stats in one post you say

"Also, your take that "using spot pricing to reframe NPV would be crazy" is disingenuous. No one is saying the PFS should be rebuilt around spot - but when prices have risen 50–90% across key metals, and the company previously published sensitivity tables, you don't get to argue it's irrelevant now."

You then go on to directly update NPV using the spot prices....

"1. The company reported NPV is $3.2 Billion, however we now know that is we take current spot and not the hugely undervalued prices used in the company PFS for Alpala deposit which were calculated using very conservative metal prices ($1,750/oz gold, $3.85/lb copper and $22.50/oz silver) If you plug in SolGold’s own sensitivity analysis using current spot prices ($3,373/oz gold, $4.79/lb copper, $36.33/oz silver), the NPV rises to around $6.7 billion, or £1.64/share based on 3 billion shares in issue."

Im not a believer that share prices can be impacted from bulletin boards. But I do feel sorry for people who fall for nonsense like you are putting forward.

Jack again you are very strange. Ive never been threatening to you though I confess I have ridiculed you. I have all the tickets from Telegram with the various nonsense you came out with there. The name change is public record on companies house.

I dont know how LSE works as im not a member of its Admin.

I think the share is terribly undervalued and this view is supported by the two research notes that I have quoted. Both of which have formulated an updated NPV for Cascabel based on what they view as reasonable.

I asked the IR persons many months ago why the NPV wasnt being updated. I have told you what he said - he asked the CFO and was told that if they update part of the PFS they have to update the whole thing, and accordingly will update it in the FS. This makes sense to me.

I dont have any affiliated business I work in construction, and never mining.

Why did you delete all your ByronBayGold Accounts Jack

I asked them to remove the posts and deactivate my account. I reactivated it got the same username but the posts are gone.

Just to give you some background on IP. He is a complete and utter nut job. Completely underwater. He was removed from the Telegram group because he is mental. To say he is a strange character is an understatement. He has openly admitted breaking the law (putting money into an ISA whilst non resident in the UK), was forced to delete his original account here along with his twitter (username was byronbaygold), this was seemingly after receiving a cease and desist letter from Solgold after the outrageous lies he told after an online meeting with Scott Caldwell (which incidentally cut off all communication with the board). He further changed his name by deed poll as detailed by company house records.

Pbow has a brain unlike you. I dont think the board has anything meaningful to announce at present and wont until the TAM drilling is completed. I would note that its a disgraceful failing of previous management that we are in this position but it is what it is. I would note that I voted against Scott in both off the last 2 AGMs you voted against him in the last one and voted for him in the previous one so again unlike you I have been consistent in my views.

Hannam and partners updated the NPV in their model using different rates. Using spot rates is neither professional or logical. Its a multi generational mine.

No franco tranche 2 - because we haven't met the CP - i copied and pasted the CP we havent met yesterday from the contract.

No exploreco - because the government has introduced an inspection fee and most likely we will have to walk away from most of the concessions.

No Tam drilling news - because they said it will start in May, take three months and then the assay results will be a month later. So news is due most likely September / October not June!!!!

No G mining update - because they have nothing to update. They need the TAM drilling results which as above arent there yet to complete the FS, TSF and the license application.

No cu offtake - because we dont have one

No Cascabel technical team - Santiago Vaca, Reed Huppman and Ash Martin are the technical team.

Delisting tsx - to save money.

I don't believe we will get 100% of NAV given the jurisdiction and the current position of the mine. If the mine was producing maybe. We don't even have a FS. Getting 100% NAV isn't happening (at this point). We certainly wont get 100% of NAV using todays spot prices which would frankly be nuts.

Jack if the share price goes up my shares will appreciate at the same rate as yours - given I probably have more than you ill be happier. That being said if they reach the levels as per Hannam and Partners are aiming for I will be happily selling up and forgetting all about you and solgold.

I cant exactly recall the full conversation but I think I said words to the effect that if a bid came in now then I would expect it to be in a certain range and we would then need to hope for a counter bid. Given the share price is at 7 pence a bid of 30 pence would be a more than 300% premium. Im struggling to think of any examples where a premium such as that was offered in an opening bid.

Jack this is a bulletin board - a pay per click campaign requires adverts that you click on. Given Ive not posted any adverts the premise of your point is stupid. Further if I was paid per post, say 50 pence for the sake of arguments, id have earnt a massive 750 pounds...... Seriously for the sake of your family go and see a psychiatrist.

I have no idea what the takeover price will be or when/ if it will happen as I don't have a crystal ball. That being said the guidance provided by redcloud and Hannam and Partners seems (in my opinion) to be far more realistic than the nonsense you spout.

Hopefully the results from the drilling at TAM will be positive in August/September/October, and we then complete the FS and submit the license application prior to the end of the year. That will be key risk reduction events which may well have a positive impact on the share price. Unfortunately I think Exploreco is now a dead duck - other than the possible spin off of Porvenir but will be very happy if I am wrong on this.

Nothing actually which is why I havent deleted my twitter account or changed my name like you ;-)

I know you are a special person with psychotic tendencies but why on earth do you keep suggesting my name is Claire? its very odd, even for you.

Id be amazed if I didnt hold more shares than you IP.

I took a break for 3 weeks, didnt delete my twitter account, came back with the same username and didnt change my name with companies house. Can you think of someone who did that?

My argument is simple.

1) the CFO told the IR person it would not be done.

2) given it hasnt been done in the last 14 months it stands to reason that they wont do it in the next 6 months.

I provided the link as you seem to insist its breaking the rules. If it ia report it.

Cash we will find out soon enough its not being suspended

https://www.lahora.com.ec/economia/Gobierno-de-Daniel-Noboa-asegura-que-no-dara-marcha-atras-en-la-tasa-o-impuesto-minero-20250616-0041.html

I expect we will walk away from most concessions.

Cash you need to read the details of the proposed tax. Its aim is to raise over 200 million a year. If solgold is paying 4 million its impossible

Rich no i dont which is exactly my point.

Cash there is a problem which is why all the mining companies have kicked off and the government has seemingly backed down (at least for now).