Member Info for Quady

Morning easyp.
I like anyone else, cannot predict the share price, as you know I don't believe any bids are coming, for so many reasons.
However I do believe, as we prove up other tenements, and with the PFS, arriving soon, not all future share pricing, will be dependent on Alpala.
Personally I welcome this, but we have the development of Alpala, underpinning all this.
I believe that the restructuring exercise, going on at the moment, will give us the support that we require, and push this further to production.

Hello pob69, for completeness, I take it you are referring to the note released on the 2 September 2020.

Good morning Pob69, I have seen some of your posts, pasted on here, I have no strong feelings, one way or another.
However, could I ask you to give your personal calculations on why a 55 pence bid in the first/ second quarter is a possibility.
I have read the Liberum note, and it's complete rubbish.
By bringing attention to this, are you saying you believe this, and if so why.

I should think we are going to find out on the 14th via the webinars.

Thank you everyone.

Thank you for the reply addicknt, I am unsure, this is why I post. However there is some past discussion that part of Blanca was in ENSA, I have had a brief look, but maybe someone, who is more knowledgeable on this aspect, could find this information.

Hi addicknt, so ENSA holds a geographical area, this includes part of Blanca, hence why I believe Blanca was split.

Ok guys, but we are talking about selling Alapala, ENSA is more than Alpala.

Hi mwv1, I believe that ENSA is an agreement. It's an envelope that holds the assets and the licenses.
When Alpala is built, and the mine is in production, then ownership of Alpala is transferred to the owners, along with the licensing.
There are other parts of ENSA, but when all the conditions of ENSA are met, ENSA is dissolved.

I agree it's complicated, as I don't have a cooperate finance background, nor a legal background, so appreciate yours and others input.

Sorry rcgl2, I disagree, I believe the sale of ENSA to be an asset transfer.

Here it is addicknt, worth reading the whole document, as very informative, but the section you want is section 3

https://content.next.westlaw.com/4-602-2367?__lrTS=20200727165406184&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

This is the part from section 3 pasted in below, but be my guest, check the whole document, also talks about extra tax, if an asset is sold.

In a share/quota transfer the company continues with its business, contracts, and permits, meaning that the business is not affected. However, in the case of asset transfers, new permits may be required (for example, environmental and operating permits) and this may mean that the business is affected.

Give me some time addicknt, I know I can find the link, but not one I saved.

Casapinos, the reasons were stated as well.
I will explain.
First, if Alpala was sold seperatly, then all the environmental licenses but be reapplied for, and Governance across the company , must be brought into line. The water permit for Alpala, took us 6 months, to obtain, as we had to provide proof of concept, to avoid contaminating the water basin, this took 3 attempts, as we were rejected twice.

In the event of the sale of Solgold, the licenses transfer, however everything that is involved in a takeover, ( especially a hostile takeover ) holds things up. This could add another 6 months to a year.
It's not straight forward.

Thank you for your reply casapinos. One observation.
This has been established, that no one, can build this faster, than Solgold, this has been stated more than once, not just from NM, but from the Ecuadorian mining minister.

I agree addicknt, for different reasons, why would Solgold, take the investment, for such a large giveaway.

Thank you redknight, well remembered.
That is the expertise, we are using for mine design in the PFS.
All the best

Well done rcgl2, it is a thought experiment, because it has many answers, you have put forward your thoughts, and have come up with a similar answer to myself, but have taken a different route.
Our answers are the same, this is not going to be sold off cheap.
So the only question left, is will someone pay the price, to acquire Solgold.
So people think so, some don't.

Morning Colonel, the block caving experts, are external companies, that take on civil engineering projects, for mine construction and maintenance, these guys are the experts, not the mining companies themselves.
That is exactly how this mine will be built, by Solgold.
We hire the expertise.

Good morning caspapinos, let me ask you to conduct a thought experiment, to test your hypothesis.
Let's say you are correct, and that the main stakeholders form a concert group, to take this out for profit.
The experiment is this.

Who would this concert group consist of?
What would the Ecuadorian government make of this?
Why would the companies you put in this concert group, be happy, with just a slice of Solgold, when most of the debate, is about a major owning them?
How would the agreement of blocks of shares, be acquired, from such a diverse book, and at what price and why?

I could put many more questions to you, but this enough to work on.

Lastly, I would ask you to consider, one last point.
How would Solgold defend against any bid ?

All the best.

Well said Copperpot. There seems to be a victim mentality on this chatroom. We are in control of our destination. This can be defended, no one, and I mean no one, is getting us cheap. Look at the diverse register, and do the maths yourselves. You require a lot of companies to come together, to form a concert group. For what purpose I say. So that they can devide Solgold up between them. That is mad. Why would BHP, or anyone, who wanted to bid for Solgold in its entirety, give it away to other companies, so that NM, wasn't in charge.