Member Info for Quady

Rich3r renewables are already cheaper than oil and gas.

The current problem is today we cannot meet the baseload requirements fully, so we need to use gas.

They currently charge at the highest rate, otherwise companies like octopus would have an unfair advantage.

So it's the gas price they charge at.

Greg Jackson is campaigning to get the link between gas and renewables removed.

If that happens, you get a 30% decrease in the electricity price overnight.

Evening Rich3r, the answer to when we get our bills cut is probably never.

In truth I don't know.

What I do know is that without going for renewables, prices go up faster.

Everyone in the know how, knows this.

Also if we don't change our habits wee face a food crisis.

The problem is electricity is going to experience more and more demand for obvious reasons.

Monte try reading the new scientist and start looking at university papers on advanced physics.

This stuff has been in development for over 20 years.

We now have commercial viability.

Good to see you Zoros, take no notice of Jezzoo he's strange.

Knows nothing about anything, but spouts nonsense.

Very strange indeed.

I take it you looked up the development of sodium chloride batteries.

They are really game changing and cheap.

They are also going to change the landscape of solar and wind, as batteries that are cheap, scalable and with the addition of PX2XP means that solar and wind can operate 24 hours a day and all year round.

People like Jezzoo and slug and others are science deniers and climate change deniers.

In other words imbeciles.

For you Rich3r.

The new sodium chloride batteries coming in next year.

New sodium-ion (salt-based) EV batteries are projected to have very long lifespans, with some manufacturers claiming they will last for over 10,000 charge cycles, thats around 300-400 years life span, if charged once every two weeks with a range of over 500 miles and potentially the entire operational life of the vehicle. This could translate to over a million miles of driving.

Good afternoon Rich3r these are MTBF figures, so they are reliable.

You are quite right they degrade, so after 30 years expect around a charge capacity of only 90%.

Admittedly this is a problem for older EVs that only have just over 100 miles of range to start with, but in two or three years time.

500 miles will be the norm.

Good afternoon Rich3r.

On point one you are quite right, the extra weight causes more wear on road surfaces.

On point two yes more tire dust or more accurately nano particles.

On point three we are currently building a solution to deal with the batteries, which will dismantle them and reuse the materials.

On point four it's much more interesting.

A ten year old EV will be fine with 300,000 miles on the clock.

As batteries degrade, they don't fail, so currently EV batteries perdicted to last 30 years, with little maintenance, much cheaper to run than an ICE car.

Hi addicknt, yes there are taxes on oil and gas, but they are not high enough to offset the cost of cleaning up the pollution.

In around 2015 it was estimated that a litre of petrol, should have three pounds if tax on it.

I am the first to say that's not feasible, because the economy would grind to a halt, however it does show the importance of moving to renewables faster than our current position.

Rodney, I could argue that we need to increase subsidies for EVs.

The polluter should pay.

Hence the taxes we raise from ice vehicles subsidise the good choices.

We do it with tobacco and alcohol in order to improve health.

We should do the same with oil and gas.

Good news for the climate and the health of the population.

I totally agree with you Rodney.

Supeised you got so many ticks as you are saying exactly what I have been consistently saying since 2015, when Solgold announced we were going to production.

Morning addicknt, I am not saying we are derisked.

I am saying we were derisked enough to attract a bid years ago.

No mining jurisdiction in the world is derisked.

It's just not possible.

Same with oil and gas.

Morning addicknt, I am too long in the tooth to not understand about de-risking.

It has never been a problem for Solgold.

If you believe it is, you need to explain the following.

BHP paid 46 pence a share for their share in the company, when we had enormous risk.

But wouldn't make a bid when we were 6 pence a share, with a much lower risk profile.

It makes no sense unless they know that with the diverse book, and the fact we have funding, that the only way they could bid, was too launch a hostile bid, and we both know they would never do that.

Addicknt.

BHP could have launched a bid just recently when we were 6 pence a share.

We both know that.

Yes no company needs to be fully derisked to be bid for.

All the people on here saying we need to be derisked were the same people in 2012 saying a bid was imminent.

BBG was among them.

MadPunter you really should learn to read.

I said no such thing.

I said they tried to buy us.

They never made any bid.

Nothing was tabled.

Show me the RNS where a bid was tabled.

You cannot because it never happened.

I really don't think you have any experience in investing.

Rumour isn't fact.

Sorry BBG, that's rubbish.

There are lot's of distressed copper assets around the world.

These are assets with proven assets and no funding.

This allows majors to come in and through dilution to take a controlling share of the company, by continuously giving them money for issued shares and taking over a copper asset.

Something Nick Mather never allowed.

He kept the book diverse, never allowing such a move and defended us.

So today we are in a position where we got time to prove up what we had and raise the funding to exploit it.

Lastly people on here keep saying majors want a derisked asset.

This is completely untrue.

I sold and bought gas and oil for over 40 years.

Practically all Discovery's bought at cheap prices before derisked.

Because they were requiring money and because the majors had the money to derisk the asset.

I'm BHP tried to acquire a controlling interest in us in 2018.

This is when we were not derisked in any form or manor.

According to you, they would never make such a move, but they did.

Since they didn't acquire us on the cheap, they have hoped that we would stumble and need investment.

Well we got the investment in the form of offtake.

So the offtake offer considered we were derisked to build Cascabel, but BHP didn't.

Nothing to do with de-risking further.

We have been derisked enough for years to get an offer.

Very simply we can build this and obtain the best value for shareholders, and no-one will meet the price we require for a sale.

Good morning addicknt.

Usually they say nothing.

But BHP went one step further.

Having overpaid in the past, they made the announcement that this wouldn't happen again.

BBG, this is not news in 2018 BHP stated it would not overpay for assets particularly copper.

It was going for organic growth.

This was about modernisation of it's current assets to extract more copper.

This is part of the reason it will not bid for Solgold.

It's because we are not distressed and so they would need to pay a fair value.

BHP will never do that, they will go after distressed assets that they can acquire cheaply.

But we all know that if we have been listening to what Solgold and BHP have been saying for years.

Great news over 20 pence.

Also no doubt that renewables are cheaper than gas and coal by a long way and why we will always have a shortage of copper.

https://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-is-cheaper-and-healthier-so-why-isnt-it-replacing-fossil-fuels-faster-269685

Thank you addicknt you raised an important point which I missed.

It adds to the debt facility.

Solgold had stated that we are looking at a mixture of bonds and debt for the rest of the finance.

This maybe the missing part we require.

Just my thoughts.

When we get CIPA, I don't think it will be game changing.

We may get a small rise, or it may already be priced in.

My thoughts are these.

We already have AIPA, and CIPA just formalises what we already have, so as this doesn't really change much, it's quite possible it's already in the price.

I have thought for some time that the rest of the financing is what we require and the start of construction, which must start soon.

Dare I use the word's.

Construction is imminent.