Member Info for rcgl2

You can already see Norges voting on their website.

https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/responsible-investment/our-voting-records/meeting?m=1692874

Against renumeration report, against James Clare, against Dan Vujcic.

For everything else.

Hi Add this is my two pence on A trades. AT trades or automatic trades just mean that the orders are placed directly into the trading book on the exchange by a party who has direct access. As in if you look at the order book on L2 you will see all the buy and sell orders that have been submitted into the book and trades occur when buy and sell orders are matched by the matching engine. When you or I trade with our brokers such as HL or whoever, we are trading off book with a market maker, so our trades are flagged as O trades. Our orders aren't going directly into the order book.

Market makers, broker dealers, banks etc will all have direct access to the book. The electronic trading businesses of dealer banks will allow their clients (such as hedge funds) to use their direct market access to place their orders. Retail investors like us can also get DMA if we want through various brokers who offer the service, and if we wanted to could then trade directly in the order book. Personally I have no desire to do this, as I'm not a day trader and whether my order gets filled at 16.72 or 16.75 is not going to make much difference to me in the long run.

This is also why I think it's meaningless to worry about "buys" and "sells" when looking purely at A trades... they are trades that have occurred because a buy and a sell order have been matched by the book, so every trade is both a buy and a sell depending on which side you are on.

If the trade is flagged as ALGO then it means the buy or sell order (or both) was generated by an algorithm. In my opinion this could be anyone, from algorithmic trading funds, HFT traders, automated risk management or execution engines at broker dealers, market makers managing their books, or as quady said it could be individual investors who have access to algo trading tools via their brokers. In other words, you really don't know who was behind any given AT trade or why it was traded, and therefore in my opinion it's not worth worrying about it. A trades and ALGO trades are just part of trading and unless you're a short term day trader I wouldn't spend time overanalysing them.

Quady, it is being shorted now in Canada by a fund called XIB AM. Appears to be a merger arbitrage. I don't think it means much and once the merger is done the SP will move on. I just don't think Maxit are involved in shorting a company they just invested another $5m into.

Sorry to burst your bubbles but the idea that Maxit, which is soon to be a very significant shareholder in Solg and has just invested $5m to buy even more shares, would then be shorting Solgold via some secret arrangement with another firm is absolutely preposterous! Get it into your heads, Maxit, Irwin, Nick Mather, Blackrock, Norges, Berry Street and every other fund and long investor on the register want the same outcome as we do - the share price to go as high as it possibly can! None of them are going to be shorting the stock, suppressing it so they can load up cheaply, tanking the SP for BHP's benefit or any other ridiculous theory you want to cling to to try to explain away why YOUR investment in Solgold hasn't returned you the mega riches you were expecting yet.

A quick google search will show you that 181 Bay Street is a 49 storey tower in downtown Toronto, it's hardly proof of a grand conspiracy that two financial firms happen to have offices there. I'm sure there are many firms based in the same building.

Maxit and Sangha are driving this bus now for an exit at the highest possible price. That means get the SP up as high as possible before a bid comes in, so that we don't get some jester offering to buy us at a 25% premium to last close which equates to a miserly 21p.... which is what we'd get today for that.

Add, exactly, but they will need to be bought out so they will still profit. What I meant was it's not like Osisko gives Solg $50m and only gets paid if Solg themselves take Cascabel to production, but otherwise walk away with nothing. Therefore it should not be seen as confirmation that Solg will take Cascabel to production.

Hi Quady, in answer to your 8.53 post, the FNV and Osisko NSR agreements both contain essentially the same change of control and transfer provisions. If ownership of ENSA or the Solg holdco is transferred, or there is a change of control of Solgold, the transferee has to sign up to the same terms and conditions as per the NSR agreement. In other words the NSR attaches to Cascabel regardless of who owns it, and would be transferred to any buyer.

So there is the option to buy back 1/2 of the FNV NSR and 1/3 of the Osisko one... but the rest is perpetual. So yes both FNV and Osisko expect Cascabel to be taken to production, but it doesn't matter to them by whom. In fact it's probably better for them if a major buys Cascabel or Solg and gets everything ramped up as soon as possible. That's also presumably why BHP and NCM are so vocally against these NSR deals, because it gives away part of every and any shareholder's eventual returns regardless of who they are.

I guess an acquiror could just negotiate with the FNV and Osisko to terminate the NSRs by mutual consent, for a suitably large sum of cash... so the streamers still get paid one way or the other and hence why they are keen to advance funds now. Solg had already failed to get an equity raise done, doesn't want too much dilution and probably wants to poke BHP and NCM in the eye to trigger a bidding war, hence why they went for this form of financing imho.

Add, Q, regarding the Cascabel funds, presumably because even if they intend to sell it they still need to keep derisking the project while they wait for an offer to buy it. They can't just sit there and do nothing hoping someone comes along to take it off their hands. Isn't it just that the further all these optimisations are progressed in the meantime, the more attractive the economics look to an acquiror?

After the merger WI will be holding almost 45m shares of Solg... Why would he want the price to go anywhere except upwards as high as possible.

Hi RK, after the merger completes Solg shares will continue to be listed on both London and Toronto, and one of the conditions precedent for completion is the approval of both TSX and LSE for the listing and admission to trading of the new Solg shares to be issued as part of the transaction.

Technically the hydroelectric plant is not part of the Strategic Review. It's part of the "Project Advancement and Exploration" for Cascabel, alongside a whole load of other optimisation options. The strategic review is looking at a non-exhaustive list of 4 items.

The optimisation process for Cascabel is presumably to make the economics more attractive. I don't think that precludes the scenario where an full or partial disposal occurs for a higher price, which feeds into the strategic review. I just don't think you can selectively cling to the hyrdoelectric power item as a signal that this is or is not getting sold.

Strategic Review

The Board is focused on maximising value for all shareholders. A Strategy Sub-Committee led by Non-Executive Director, Dan Vujcic, will continue to advance the previously announced Strategic Review as a top priority.

As previously disclosed, the Strategic Review includes, among other things, evaluating and pursuing value enhancing opportunities for the Company such as:

· evaluating financing alternatives for the Company that endorse project value;

· a spin-out of assets, other than the Cascabel project, to all shareholders;

· the direct or indirect sale of an interest in the Cascabel project at prices that endorse project value howsoever effected; or

· any other transaction or series of related transactions.

Project Advancement and Exploration

SolGold is focused on advancing Cascabel in a cost effective and value maximising manner.

The Cascabel Project Team is rigorously reviewing all opportunities to de-risk the project, reduce costs and further improve project economics. The Project Team is investigating an expanded list of optimisation opportunities and upside options including:

· Alpala underground mine design optimisation;

· improvements to mine and mill production rate;

· inclusion of open pit resources including at Tandayama-America;

· process plant design optimisation;

· opportunities for improved metallurgical recovery;

· improving gold recoveries;

· capital and operating cost reduction opportunities;

· hydropower project development; and

· project execution strategy.

To be fair we don't know what the Chinese would or wouldn't have taken and at what price, other than what they have just bought.

From their perspective they may have said well, the SP is currently in the high teens and way down from where it has been in the past, you just failed to get a funding round away over the summer and are rapidly running out of cash and you can't just keep giving more and more of the upside away in streaming deals, and you're about to dilute us by up to 20% if we invest now so you can complete the CGP buyout. So if you want us to fund your company to the tune of 30-odd million dollars, we want to see you guys (management and shareholders who are driving this thing) put up some cash of your own so you've got decent skin in the game and all of our interests are aligned. And we'll have our shares at 20c please because beggars can't be choosers and right now Solg needs our cash more than we need to invest it in Solg...

Hi Quady. "No one is going to buy us unless they can get us cheap."

You don't know that though, aren't you just basing that on comments from Mike Henry? There are more potential buyers than just BHP. History is littered with examples of M&A where the buyer paid way too much for the target, it happens all the time. Additionally I would say that what even is cheap when it comes to a mine with a 55+ year life of an in demand metal? Considering the cashflows at peak capacity you could say that $2bn or $3bn right now is good value to secure all that copper and gold, especially if prices go up as anticipated.

"No one is going to sell because they want full value or close to it."

Yes but there reaches a point where selling is the only way to realize any value for it, because if they continue to hold and Solg reaches a point where it cannot fund construction, value will be destroyed. Likewise if you hold too long and Solg is forced into a poor value JV or similar to try to cling onto some ownership of Cascabel and move it forward, you might be staring down the barrel of a SP in the single digits for years to come and 40p today will in hindsight look like a massively missed opportunity.

Thanks DBW... I was just looking at their TR1 RNSs...

Add, re Norges holdings, on 1 March they owned 73,948, 696 shares (3.22%), of which 70,334,591 were held by them and 3,614,105 had been loaned out by them to other parties, with a right for Norges to recall them.

As of yesterday, they own 82,875,000 shares (3.609%), of which 68,375,000 are held by them and 14,500,000 have been loaned out by them with a right to recall them.

So they own a larger percentage of the company, but they have loaned more shares out than previously. I guess both direct holdings and loaned shares are reported cumulatively in the TR1 because Norges has the right to recall the loaned shares, so when it comes to any voting at meetings etc they have the ability to control the entire amount if they choose to recall their loaned shares. This is the same as Blackrock reporting their direct holdings and the stock lending instruments (i.e. the shares they have transferred to someone else under a stock lending arrangement but ultimately have the right to receive back upon termination of the loan).

Apologies if this is teaching you to suck eggs.

Red HKSCC nominees is the nominee company of the HK stock exchange's clearing company. It's basically the exchange.

BlackRock own shares in virtually every large company in the world. They aren't going to manipulate markets just so one company they happen to own 1% of can acquire a stake in another for pennies cheaper. Particularly when they hold shares in the target in their funds and therefore want the highest possible return for their investors.

Bubble what exactly do you think the 1 share trade means and why? I know it's "your theory" but since you keep posting it on here day in, day out I think it's fair to ask.

Who is meant to be flagging news, to whom and for what purpose?

Fort, agree. I think they want to sell cascabel and retain (one way or another) our current exposure to any upside in the rest of the portfolio. Hence the debate the other day about the spin out or regionals. It would be a crying shame to sell the whole company only based on Cascabel and the acquiror gets all the rest for virtually nothing.

Ecuador is seen as a new mining frontier. Solg with it's large package of licences across the country is seen by some as a good entry point into the Ecuador mining play... Not just as Cascabel.

Hi Mog, that's the one! Thank you!

Reading this again I feel like it describes a lot of what Mather has tried to do with Solg. In my opinion it explains a lot about what they have done over the last few years, the whole production Plan A (as a means to trigger M&A) and some of the internal tensions on the board as they tried to cover both bases in terms of experienced M&A types and experienced mine builders.

Has anyone got the link to that article that's a guide for junior miners trying to sell their resources to majors? It was written by a guy who had been a CEO. It was a list of 10 or so points and was quite pertinent to Solg's position.

Iirc one of the things he said was always get a major onboard if you can, although they could cause you some issues it will benefit your project to have a major name on board. I think he also said expect shenanigans and dirty dealing, you have to rise above it and stay strong and you will get a deal in the end, or words to that effect.

It's Mather, Twigger and Clare who have agreed to/engineered this complete turnaround in strategy imho. They are the only ones from the "old" board who are still left and there's no way the CGP merger and then the two CGP directors becoming CEO and head of Strat Review would have happened unless those guys wanted/allowed it. All of the more recent appointments (Keith, Kevin, DC etc) have gone and with them the comsiliatory and softly softly approach to relations with BHP/NCM and the slow and steady progress at Cascabel. It's now balls out of the bath time, and Mather, Twigger and Clare are fully aligned with CGP, Sangha and co, they are pushing for a sale of Cascabel and/or Solg, so I have voted for them.