Member Info for Quady

Good evening BNC, OK that is what I kinda thought, more detail required. Agree with you on point one, as Ecuadorian government always said it was going to do this, and they have been true to their word. On your second point, feel you could be correct, but it mentions taxpayers, if that is the case, I would have used a phrase like those involved in the execution of exploration, exploitation and transportation. Maybe it was written in Spanish and doesn't translate exactly to English.

Good evening BNC, not sure either version correct, but I should have provided my thoughts in my first post. Version one is taxpayers get royalties for maintaining contracts, does this mean tax breaks for working on mining projects or is a royalty assumed in some other way. Version two is some type of royalty is given for taxpayers that support the project, from exploration, exploitation and transportation. If this is true, then this makes the PEA even more attractive than I think it is. But I get the gist, I am missing some of the detail.

Good afternoon Pinot, thank you for the article. Trying to get my head round one part of it, would be grateful for your take on the matter. As I read this two ways. In addition, royalties are established for those taxpayers who maintain contracts for exploration , exploitation and transportation of non-renewable natural resources.

Good morning Longish, OK that makes sense. I do think this current share price drop is way overdone. I have entertained thoughts like this is being walked down, for a takeover bid, or it's all about the Dividend cover, which I believe to be a red herring. Who knows even Brexit, Also the Liberty deal uncertainty doesn't cut it. However if Dividend cut by a third, we would still be offering a good return. In short no idea why the price is this low, when we are constantly bringing businesses into the Vodafone model and cutting costs year by year.

Vod net assets are not 68 billion, you are using the 2015 accounting figures, as far as I can work out.

My understanding was the money from the Verison deal, some would be used to support the shortfall in the dividend cover until, cost savings were achieved. Agreed the 800 million shortfall doesn't help.

Strider4, you are agreeing with me , but then conflate. I said in my statement, that NM said he was taking this to production. Not that he would. However my statement was is NM lying, you mustlearn thedifferance between a statement, a fact, a conclusion and conjecture. I will repeat, my statement was is NM lying.I then presented the facts and my conclusion. Yes some opinion, but then we get into a theory, which is something that is supported by all the relevant facts anddisputed by none. However that's not thecase here, as a bid could emerge, however it won't be from BHP till Oct2020. So then therest of the original post contains my reasoning,this part is opinion or more accurately conjecture. I also agree with the many posts on my thread. It was merely a statement, followed by the facts, and then conjecture to lead to a conclusion. All things are possible, I just stated what I feltwas most likely given therelevant facts.

Strider4, first of all I have a scientific background, so please don't tell me what a fact is. Secondly you still do not know what a fact in that you say my post is mostly opinion. Let me help you, first the facts in my statement. BHP tried to make a bid and was rebuffed. This is an observation, hence a fact. They were allowed a buy in, but with conditions, another fact. NM says he wants to extract maximum shareholder value another fact. NM says he is taking this to production, another fact. If you carry on digging holes you burn cash, another fact. I also say I have more observations, but feel I said enough. I also give my reasoning for the facts. I suspect that you are conflating the two. However my post was not devoid of facts, hence my statement which was is NM lying. And my conclusion is I don't think so.

Agreed Strider4 let's not get silly again, not saying you are wrong, however I will lay out the evidence as I see it. First a quick definition. Evidence is based on facts. Facts are events which are observations made directly or indirectly, so let's look at the observations or as we say facts. BHP, wanted in earlier on, they were rebuffed. I feel this was because if they got a foothold, this share would be walked down and they would attain shares by attrition. Eventually they came on with Nm's blessing, but with conditions. The two year clause. This gives NM, a chance to increase value, and also protects us from hostile takeovers, knowing this releases BHP to bid. Question how does NM, now increase shareholder value. We could keep digging, proving up resources, but this burns cash, and makes dilution a bigger problem and also makes a hostile takeover more attractive to the interested parties. So why the 2 year clause. I believe to get the funding in place and start production. This adds tremendous value, and also pulls in other interested parties onto the share register, making this harder to walk down, and whoever buys this have to pay a higher price. I have more observations, but feel this is enough to suspect that after the PEA, we will be better informed. All the best Strider4.

Good morning Strider4, please feel free to outline your evidence.

This comes down to a simple issue of trust and less self talk. Lots of speculation on a bid. Not saying it couldn't happen but unlikely. Do you trust what NM says. I do, in fact he has been pretty consistent, in order to get maximum value for share holders, this goes to production. He is already talking about a start up, and talking to the money people to finance this. My thinking on the delay for the PEA in the first quarter is simple. We will have extra core samples, prove up more, and this will help get the finance in place at the correct rate of interest. Now the self talk part, we must not let our wishes guide our investments, look at the evidence. This is a fine stock to own, but patience required.

Hello Northman1, if I was to take a punt on next resource update. Then to me, it would make sense to issue it at the same time as the PEA. Maybe this is what is causing the delay.

Strider4, not wishing to go too far on this, otherwise it will get silly. NM has never said he had a price in mind. If I am wrong find me a quote. His job is too run Solgold and give it direction. He doesn't worry what price he can get. He doesn't know. No one does.

Hello Redleader1, you could be right, just my thoughts on the subject.

Hello Strider4, I believe you just said, what I said.

Good morning Strider4, just for accuracy, NM does not have a price in mind. His repeated quote is, that if an offer too good to turn down came along, then he would take it. I do not believe that is going to happen now, as too many interested parties. Hence the price would have to be above value. Which no one knows yet. That's why I have always said this will go to production. (Along with other reasons). Only way to get max value.

The PEA was due mid January, however, recent update has changed it to first quarter this year. Could be many reasons for the delay. However can't see any of them being bad.

Thank you Mog, that was my understanding, that it would require board approval. Can't see them getting that until the Oct 2020 date, as believe NM, when he says he wants max value. Looking forward to the PEA, when at last us shareholders can attribute a ballpark figure on the value of Solgold.

My understanding is that BHP cannot make a bid till October 2020, unless someone else puts in a bid first, as they have a deal to vote with the board. Please correct me if I am incorrect.

Have noticed one change in the blog. It doesn't talk about the PEA in January. It now says in the first quarter.