Member Info for rcgl2

DM - ministry statement is here (well, their press release, which I assume is the statement):

https://www.recursosyenergia.gob.ec/ministerio-de-energia-y-minas-suscribe-acta-de-negociacion-con-solgold-previo-a-la-firma-del-contrato-de-explotacion-minera-del-proyecto-cascabel/

"Durante la vida del proyecto se estima una inversión de USD 4.882 millones."

"During the life of the project, an investment of USD 4,882 million is estimated." (Google translation)

Sorry hadn't seen your reply to Bozi, is that the answer to my questions? That you just see no evidence of a willing buyer at present?

AgArCu - if what unfolds is some sort of JV or similar arrangement with a much larger partner facilitating the financing and beginning construction (potentially leading to them buying out their Solg junior partner at some point in the future), then I agree that this is not all going to unfold any time soon.

However I thought the "fast and smart" comment was in reference to selling Cascabel. It wasn't clear to me whether their preferred option was literally selling Cascabel (ENSA) and keeping the rest, spinning it off etc, or if it was to try to sell the whole of Solg to an acquiror who gets Cascabel and everything else thrown in. I thought the point of the Bob's Bat reference was that he was trying to keep Cascabel out of the hands of BHP and NCM, by selling it to someone else.

What is your reasoning that neither of these options will not happen in the near future? Let's say, within a year, rather than putting an arbitrary 31 Dec cut-off on it. What's to stop someone like Jiangxi coming in and offering to buy Cascabel/ENSA and Solg's board recommending this as the best outcome on the basis that they have no hope of financing it themselves and remaining as a minority partner in a JV is not the best value for shareholders? Or alternatively, what is to stop an interested party tiring of the constant "two steps forward one step back" of Solg trying to develop Cascabel, and just making a bid for the whole company? That would get all the prospects into the acquiror's future pipeline to be developed by them on their timeframe and with their negotiating power facing Ecuador govt.

I'm not saying I expect either of these (sale of Cascabel or sale of Solg) to happen in the next year for any particular reason, other than I suppose that if they are going to happen they have to happen at some point. Just curious as to why you think they definitely won't happen within a year.

If you were in at 3p how have you managed to lose money and how is that Mather's fault? If you're still holding now you're up over 5x. The SP has been to 40p about 4 times since you bought in. It's your own fault if you didn't sell when you were up over 10x on multiple occasions.

Throughout the time I've held this share I've often tried to figure out what exactly could Solg management have done differently. If the ultimate goal was always to get taken over/sell Cascabel and no one was willing to make an offer, what could they have done differently...

Lots has been said about the PFS and the multiple false starts. But then again, depending on who the eventual buyer is, how important is Solg's PFS really no matter what form it took.

I keep coming back now to the CGP merger and the resultant dilution. I think when I invested there were 2-2.2bn shares issued. Now there are about 3bn. The SP now seems to reflect the dilution in terms of number of shares without much uplift for the fact the company owns 100% of Cascabel not 85%.

I wonder if the real mistake was not paying up to consolidate years ago. Everyone seems to think consolidating 100% of Cascabel was the right move, from Mather to Cuzzubo to CGP management. Maybe if Mather had been less aggressive and hubristic a few years back and hadn't launched that insulting hostile offer that was doomed to fail from the outset, we'd be in a better position today. If CGP's 15% really did make Solg a much more attractive takeover prospect then it was worth paying up for. By trying to get it on the cheap, we ended up paying up for it later on from a worse financial position at a lower SP and with much more dilution. We also failed to consolidate during the bull market post covid and now find ourselves languishing here trying to sell in unfavorable market conditions.

No research behind this post by the way, just my top of the head musings as I sit watching my kids in soft play on holiday...

I guess I would just say for balance that signing an NDA doesn't immediately mean you can't trade the shares, it depends if you are actually in possession of inside information.

Under UK MAR inside information has to be of a precise nature, not be public, and if it were made public be likely to have a significant affect on the price of the shares in the market. So several of these points are open to interpretation...

Solg's latest iteration of its plans to bring in power from an as yet unconstructed hydro electric plant, subject to government permits. Would be confidential and proprietary, but is it precise? Would it have a significant effect on the share price if released? Probably not. Even some drill results often don't move the price much.

HR records for all the local staff, including salary bands, pension arrangements and notice periods? Confidential and precise, but would it in itself have a significant effect on the share price? I doubt it.

So it depends what parties have seen in the data room as to whether they are prevented from trading or not, and that decision will be up to them to determine.

What could be inside information is the fact that a specific party has access to the data room and is looking at specific details to do with the mine plans or company structure, because if made public it would definitely move the share price. So I guess we'll never get precise details of which parties have seen what.

Agreed and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't say anything more than what they already told Darren one-to-one and what was in that recent MJ article. All of which was extremely interesting, but I'm not going to hold my breath for anything ground breaking. They are doing this meeting as a result of Darren telling them they need better comms with PIs.

As predicted...

Actually Ray, don't bother answering that. Here's a suggestion for the pair of you: how about you both F off and end this pathetic feud that has been ruining this board for everyone else for over a year now.

Both of you Novice and Ray are utter imbeciles and the sooner you get banned from here the better. No one wants to read your petty bickering. No one cares. Neither of you can win. Neither of you can get one over on the other one. With each and every post you both just show yourselves to be even more puerile losers.

The Solgold conversation has practically ground to a halt here because of you two idiots along with Needalife's moronic contributions. Read the room Novice... A little bit of Solg conversation broke out then after a whole morning of your stupidity, and still you couldn't resist having another go at Ray.

Why don't you just ignore each other. Stop replying to each other. Stop mentioning each other. Stop making unsubtle references to each other. For everyone else's benefit, just stop.

The depressing thing is that I know you won't. You'll each reply to claim you're going to stop whilst making some backhanded dig at each other like the immature w ankers you both are.

You're as predictable as you are pathetic.

They called a new target Juank? Have they hired Slug as regional project manager or something?

Agree DinnerMoney. Solg is a UK incorporated company so Canadian corporate law or government policy doesn't apply to it. Canada would have no jurisdiction to block the sale of Solg to any other entity.

At most, Solg is subject to the rules of the TSX as a listed issuer. What's the worst that could happen, they breach the rules and get delisted. Which be a moot point if Solg gets taken over because presumably the shares would be delisted from both LSE and TSX anyway on completion of the takeover.

Be careful of buying based on hype from Zak Mir... His pump and dump crew of Phil and Kevin from the Sunday Roast were all over this when it spiked up over 1.50 before. While they are still working the chat groups hard with their positive views they will have sold out before the inevitable drop off.

I'd prefer a decent and sustained rise without those cowboys involved.

It's earthling

https://twitter.com/BlakchinnieBlue/status/1637375298760065024?t=nOwerUnsrvVt2MXH1_rtUA&s=19

@ItsWarrenIrwin Warren, watched your Wild Expectations for Uranium interview where you mentioned $solg. You indicated that the sale may not happen which is a change from your previously bullish position. What caused you to go from trying to sell, to sale might not happen?

WI: Previous bullish position? SolGold is up for sale. Maxit is working hard on it. Bob Sangha has a lot of SolGold shares and is one of the best in the business to get it done. What more can you read in to the situation?

CB: Bigdude, the sale might not happen imply that a stumbling block has arisen, which could prevent the sale. Whereas trying to sell gives the impression the process is continuing with no adverse impediment at this time. I guess I am overthinking things here.

WI: Ya, I think you are overthinking things. We have a great deposit, great infrastructure, great banker and it almost always takes way longer than one would expect to conclude a deal. But, the numbers are big, so lots of due diligence is required.

Covgaz, market makers are still market participants trading for their own account using their own funds. They aren't some sort of unwanted stock repository where real investors can offload or pick up stock. So why should their buying and selling be negated by the market only reporting the opposite side of their trades?

They are making money from the spread so if they buy a stock from you they are incentivised to sell it to someone else for more than they bought it, or vice versa. At the end of the day if a market maker has built up a long position and needs to reduce that they are going to go into the market and sell stock, not to facilitate other investors dealing but for their own reasons. Therefore I would treat their activity equally with all other market participants' activity, meaning trades where a market maker is on one side shouldn't be reported any differently from any others. Every trade is a buy and a sell.

Also A trades don't involve market makers, they are trades between two direct participants in the order book. So literally a buyer and a seller matching.

SM, agreed. At the end of 2022 BlackRock had over $8 trillion in AUM... And inflows of over $100bn in Q4 alone.

I don't know why people get so het up about them. As I posted just before Christmas they've voted in favour of nearly all resolutions at the last few AGMs. They even voted in favour of Nick Mather's re-election when the majors were voting him down and causing him to quit as CEO.

Rich, every trade is a buy and a sell. The seller sells the shares and the buyer buys them. If you wanted to buy more shares, someone has to sell them to you. If you want to sell some shares, someone has to buy them off you.

You can't say that any trade is a buy or a sell because it's both. That's why they are just reported as a trade.

Under the Companies Act, treasury shares are shares that have been repurchased by the company using distributable profits pursuant to a share buyback scheme.

The CGP Solg shares have not been purchased in such a manner and definitely not using distributable profits. Therefore I don't think they are considered treasury shares under the Companies Act. They will just be an asset of the CGP entity that is now a Solg subsidiary.

I've always thought of the point of the royalty deal is that the company is giving away some of its future expected revenues in return for cash up front today. Solg banked $100m from FNV two years ago, and FNV get 1% of all future revenues whatever they may be once production has started.

Whereas an offtake agreement is to provide certainty of price between the seller and the buyer of goods/resources. For example Solg would agree to sell concentrate to an off-taker at an agreed price for a defined term in the future. This agreement could then be used to help secure financing from lenders who get comfort from the fact the company will have a "guaranteed" revenue stream in place with which it can service the cost of debt financing that the lenders extend.

Poison pill defences aren't allowed in the UK under the takeover code. As they allow the board of the company to frustrate an offer without it being put to shareholders.

Also it involves issuing more shares to existing shareholders.

Looks like NM will up their offer and NCM will be no more. NM will then be holding 10% of Solg... This just feels like any competitive tension as between NCM and BHP for Solg is now gone, can't see NCM bidding for Solg now and could see NM dumping the stake as non-core/low priority and without really having to worry about taking a loss on it since it would have been acquired through the takeover and not by them directly.

So good job we have Jiangxi onboard now to crank up the tension with BHP again!