Member Info for rcgl2

rlszer - not having a go at you, if you bought in at a penny and want to sell at 28p, fair enough. My only question is, why now when it's so clearly the endgame for the Alpala project? Realise you may have been in for years but it takes years to get a resource to this stage doesn't it. As people have said, Alpala IS going to get mined, it's just a question of who mines it. Either way, it seems a win for Solg. Even if taken out at 55p, it has to happen soon because PFS is due in weeks, DFS will be next year, there isn't much left after that other than build the thing. And that's double where we are today. And if Solg isn't taken out, and is involved one way or the other in building it, then surely it's even more upside as production gets closer?

It's like all these pointless articles saying "if you'd invested £10,000 in Amazon when it went public it would be worth £10,000,000 today" or whatever the figures are. Same with Bitcoin when it went to $20k. The reality is virtually no-one would or should have held on that long. Nearly everyone who bought Amazon at $50 either sold at $100 feeling mighty pleased with themselves or sold at $1,000 thinking they were Warren Buffett reborn (ironically). Most assets that have hundred bagged have taken a long time to get there and had some huge swings on the way. Amazon has had at least one 90% drawdown and I'm sure Apple has had something like 7 downers of 50% or more over the years.

If you sold GGP for a decent profit in the past and you believed at the time it was the right thing to do, then it was the right thing to do. Profit is profit.

Hi TOS - I thought that a week or two ago when CGP's price really started to move, in that it should rise to meet the value of the takeover offer if that seems likely to succeed. However, at 11 Solg shares per CGP the CGP price has gone above the current takeover value... and also given that 65% (or whatever it was) of the CGP shareholders apparently confirmed instantly to the board that they would reject the bid, I assumed you could discount Solg's bid as dead in the water anyway.

Therefore the potential for a takeover seems more likely to come from someone else at a higher price, not Solg. But then that brings me back to why Solg isn't rising accordingly. Not saying the rise needs to be the same, maybe CGP was just more heavily discounted, but I would have thought at least something a bit more substantial.

I'm still not clear why the CGP share price has doubled since May when Solg's is basically flat. Surely the two are inextricably linked? That may be the market assuming that a takeover by someone other than Solg is imminent, but isn't a takeover of one company all part and parcel of an ultimate takeover of the other? BHP or NCM could buy CGP to build a platform to have a further crack at Solg... Or if they bought Solg they would want to hoover up CGP (unless the $3.5m scenario did play out in which case CGP's rise is unjustified).

If the value of CGP is purely seen as just the value of owning 15% of Alpala then why the relative outperformance based on the same news vs Solg's 85%? And if it's seen more as a springboard for a takeover of Solg, then why isn'tg Solg's value rising in some way as a result of the potential for such a takeover.

Feel like I'm missing something.

This BB would be 1000% times easier to use if it would just allow replies to quote the comments that they are replying to (like pretty much any other forum or comment section does). Sometimes impossible to know what view is being replied to when we have so many conflicts of opinion under each thread.

Oops copied and pasted too much at the bottom, I was referring to Yvan Crepeau as CGP's person, not the independents.

For those saying that the technical breach/clarification was a result of CGP poring over Solg's work, grassing them up to the regulators and generally holding them to account for poor work, it's worth noting that CGP have also had to publish a similar notice in their own name and have effectively received the same telling off from the Alberta SC.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CORNERSTONE-CAPITAL-RESOU-61956577/news/Cornerstone-Capital-Resources-20-25-Clarification-to-Technical-Disclosure-and-Intention-to-Amend-31300342/

Obviously we all know that Solg is the operator and does all the work and CGP is largely a passenger, however, they have still also published their filings using the incorrect data and optically I think this doesn't make them look any better than Solg. They keep mentioning that they are "JV partners" in Cascabel, so if you want to take the credit for Solg's work you also have to share in the blame of mistakes no?

As it says in the release, CGP also have their own qualified persons reviewing the technical reports etc, and clearly didn't spot the mistake at the time either:

Mrs. Cecilia Artica MSc and Dr. Gregory Harbort are independent 'Qualified Persons' as defined by NI 43-101. SolGold has disclosed that Mrs. Artica and Dr. Harbort have each reviewed information relating to the Mineral Resource Estimate contained in a substantially identical news release issued by joint venture partner and project operator SolGold, from which the technical and scientific information in this news release relating to the Mineral Resource Estimate is copied, and that Mrs. Artica and Dr. Harbort each consent to the inclusion of the information in the form and context in which it appears in SolGold's news release.

Yvan Crepeau, MBA, P.Geo., Cornerstone's Vice President, Exploration and a qualified person in accordance with NI 43-101, is responsible for supervising the exploration program at the Cascabel project for Cornerstone and has reviewed and approved the information contained in this news release.

Also regarding timing CGP has 120 days from receipt of FS to elect whether it will fund its share of costs. If it doesn't make a decision it's deemed to have elected not to fund. If it does choose to fund its share, the obligation is retroactive to the date of the FS.

Here is the history of ENSA since you mentioned it Quadster. Solg originally had nothing to do with ENSA. Cornerstone acquired it, and then subsequently entered into earn-in agreements with Solg, which lead to Solg ultimately acquiring 85% in return for funding and progressing the exploration, drilling etc:

The Cascabel Concession was initially granted to Santa Barbara Copper and Gold S.A. on January 5, 2017 [this must be a typo, should say some date in 2010 or earlier] and then replaced in compliance to the Mining Law on April 26, 2010. The Resolution was protocolized in the Thirty-Second Notary Office of the Quito Canton on April 30, 2010 and was registered in the Mining Registry by the Ibarra Mining Regulation and Control Agency on May 7, 2010 under Registry No. 0022-2010, Directory 024, Volume 001. Santa Barbara Copper & Gold S.A. reformed its statute, modifying its corporate name to Exploraciones Novomining S.A. (ENSA) on July 27, 2011, and was duly registered on the Commercial Registry on November 29, 2011.

On March 29, 2011, Cornerstone Capital Resources Inc. (Cornerstone) signed a definitive agreement to acquire 100% of the shares of Santa Barbara Copper and Gold S.A., a subsidiary of then Santa Barbara Resources (TSXV-SBL). Santa Barbara Copper and Gold S.A. was subsequently renamed Exploraciones Novomining S.A. (ENSA) after being sold to Cornerstone Ecuador S.A. (CESA), a subsidiary of Cornerstone Capital Resources Inc (Cornerstone).

On April 10, 2012, SolGold entered into a binding Letter of Intent with Cornerstone to earn an 85% interest in ENSA. SolGold now holds an 85% registered and beneficial interest in ENSA. The Cascabel license is 100% owned by ENSA.

On July 24, 2012, SolGold entered into a Earn-in Agreement with Cornerstone, ENSA and CESA to explore the Cascabel licence. On February 18, 2013, the Earn-in Agreement was supplemented by a binding Term Sheet between SolGold, Cornerstone, CESA and ENSA. An amended term sheet was executed on February 24, 2014.

Cornerstone can be bought. It's a publicly traded company. It's not in Cornerstone's power to stop someone acquiring a majority of its equity.

Cornerstone's shares in ENSA cannot be transferred by Cornerstone without Solg's agreement, and Solg has right of first refusal on those ENSA shares.

Therefore BHP could take a controlling stake in Cornerstone, or indeed acquire all of Cornerstone. However, they would be left holding the 15% of ENSA indirectly through Cornerstone, and it would still be subject to the Capex contribution and the restriction on transferring it out/Solg ROFR.

For a while there after the close Fidelity was showing my solg shares priced at 27.85p... it's now corrected itself to the actual close. I wonder how that happens, seeing as I didn't think it had traded there all day, and the price feeds are probably completely automated and not prone to fat fingers. One for the conspiracy theorists!

Jst008 - what you are referring to is the stock exchange where the share is listed, in this case the main market of the London stock exchange. The exchange essentially matches off buyers with sellers, which is what determines the current price. Market participants submit their prices at which they are willing to buy or sell the shares in given quantities.

It was always going to happen because the deal had already been signed. It just hadn't closed, which was dependent on the conditions precedent being met. The most important of which was FNV completing its DD by having a site visit. I saw a post just the other day on the CGP forum along the lines of "will NM actually sign the FNV deal or not". This missed the point completely, he already had signed it. The agreement was binding and non-negotiable.

The only way the FNV deal wasn't going to close was either one of FNV or Solg breaching its contract (and presumably then getting sued by the other, so unlikely), or one of the conditions precedent not being satisfied. Most of them were formalities such as registry extracts or legal opinions, and the only material one was FNV turning up at Alpala to complete their DD (and you would hope by this stage even that was essentially a formality).

Or alternatively, there will be a lot of people who missed out on GGP and will now be frantically looking for the next exciting undervalued mining junior to put their money into, especially if GGP gets more and more overvalued. Which should be good for Solg.

So basically miagi you're saying that CGP is now in the grip of a speculative mania that is completely detached from fundamentals?

Quady what do you think ENSA is? Why can't it be sold? If anything, the one complicating factor in selling Alpala is that Solg doesn't own all of it, and CGP have their 15%. Isn't that one of the main benefits of attempting to buy CGP? It consolidates the ownership of Alpala under one owner, so easier to finance or sell?

ENSA is just the local company in which holds the Cascabel concession, licences, permits etc.

Haha yeah maybe it's another Neil Woodford holding being dumped at the worst time. Apparently Acacia made $74m just from flipping on what they bought from the Woodford fund in about 2 months.

Why would anyone rationally offload a couple of million shares in Solg right now? A year or two ago, sure I could understand someone calling time on their investment and wanting to put their money elsewhere. But if you are holding that many shares, suggests you should have done sufficient research to know that we are entering the crucial period for Solg. Obviously in the next 6 months to a year it will become clear what's going to happen, take out at some price higher than today or secure Alpala funding and progress to production and develop regionals.

The next 6 months or so is essentially the very reason why anyone should have invested in Solg in the first place. It's crunch time for Alpala. I don't see why bailing now of all times would be on a large holder's agenda.

There's so much better stuff to talk about than whether we can or cannot prove if BHP will or will not bid... fairly positive webinar, share price jolted this morning and creeps up by the day, BofA initiate coverage on Solg (positive news none of us were expecting), PM prices moving a bit...

One other item from the NSR agreement, it contains a specific performance clause. There is no way, after all the publicity that both Solg and FNV have put out about this deal, that NM is in a position to just walk away from it now. The suggestion that he is in fact in talks with BHP and has just used the FNV deal as leverage with no intention to consummate it seems highly unlikely. The agreement is cast iron in FNV's favour if you look at the detail in all the reps, warranties, guarantees etc. FNV will hand over their $100m and they will get their NSR out of it. If Solg walked away now, I expect FNV would be straight in there with a claim for specific performance, Solg/ENSA/whoever owns Solg and ENSA would be compelled to carry out their obligations under the agreement. FNV would look like chumps now if this was taken away from them by a major buying Solg, it defeats the whole model that streamers are selling to junior miners.