Member Info for RodneyT

Agree ARO,

Amongst all the valid questions regarding what is going on before our eyes, the one I think about frequently is 'Where are the Western suitors here in time when resource security is a priority and copper supply is getting tighter?'. I have no idea what the answer is although I do know that Western majors prefer gobbling up existing production rather than greenfield sites which are purchased predominantly by the Chinese.

Morning IP, Can you post a summary as to why you believe the Kraft Cadbury case was similar to the situation Solgold is in now please? I have had a quick look at that case and have previously searched for other 'late moves' so please post your opinion on Kraft Cadbury.

You make your points well Bozi.

True IP but pretty much unprecedented. This does not mean that unusual things cannot happen but it will be against the head now if it happens. Stating this based on review of past S o A's.

Add, a good point well made. The positions of BHP and NMM I find startling. But there we are.

Several major shareholders have decided to monetise, institutions have switched from 'supportive' to 'transactional' and the SD refers to the JCC as a premium to SP cash bid. Where is Solgold going to production independently now? The Board doesn't think it will. We shall have to see what happens tomorrow. I voted No and can do no more than that to have a say.

Add, agree that 'diverse book' point was always nonsense and has proven to be just so. It was never able to defend against a cash bid. EV's? There is no point to contend - so many major car manufacturers have lost billions focusing on EVs and are reversing their positons as soon as possible. Not an opinion, fact.

Should the Scheme be successful, JCC must pay Scheme Shareholders no later than 14 days after the Effective Date, i.e. by 18 March 2026. |This is from the Scheme Document.

Correct Matt. JCC don't get to vote.

PS, for most folk, EV's don't cut it. Everything has to be just right for the solution to work. As we know, life is often not just right. :-)

P, JCC's shares don't vote in a S o A so those can be set aside for this purpose.

Sorry to say that I suspect those 2 holdings by MS and JPM are event-driven investment related (otherwise we would have seen a TR1). Hope I am wrong and you are right Panda. :-)

Aussie Panda, I hope to goodness you are right! We are almost at 'now or never' time as things stand. 4 March latest and a fresh bid as opposed to a JCC bump would be extremely rare at this stage but not impossible. Maybe unusual times lead to unusual things happening? Let's see. :-)

Meant to say that shareholders can still vote at Monday's meeting provided they are a registered shareholder or have a LoR.

Yes and turnout will be key in the PI space. Too late now folks! The voting deadline has passed. I think most here have voted. Hope PIs elsewhere have too.

In 2024–2025 the Company told the market:

The PFS covers only 18% of the total resource

NPV8% US$3.2bn on conservative pricing

Consensus metal prices are higher than PFS assumptions

Near-surface, staged open-pit development at Tandayama

Major de-risking via Amended Investment Protection Agreement

Porvenir defined NI 43-101 resource an environmental licence granted

This is the Company’s own regulatory record!!

The Scheme Document the Court-facing document published 21 Jan 2026 focuses primarily on funding pressure and risk. It does not pull together the broader derisking above and optionality context in one place. It also makes clear that website materials are not incorporated.

This isn’t an allegation. It’s about context.

If we are being asked to approve a permanent sale at 28p, it is reasonable to consider the full disclosure history not just the narrower framing in the Scheme Document

Read the RNSs, read the Scheme Document, then decide.

No, Monte. I can ask questions here, present data and pose ideas but that's about it. All the meaningful stuff has to be looked at by a Judge!

Before voting, worth revisiting the 1 December 2023 Porvenir Project Update RNS. That announcement confirmed,

396.8Mt @ 0.44% CuEq (Indicated)

96.9Mt @ 0.37% CuEq (Inferred)

NI 43-101 compliant resource

Ongoing drilling with expansion potential

Multiple additional porphyry targets within the Porvenir cluster

Put another way, Porvenir is not conceptual. It is a defined, drilled copper/gold system with growth upside.

And yet...... the Scheme Document centres on the Cascabel PFS and does not meaningfully embed Porvenir’s scale or expansion pathway into the sale framing.

This is not an allegation of wrongdoing. It’s simply a reminder that the Company itself has publicly described a broader district scale asset base.

When deciding on a permanent sale at 28p, it is reasonable to consider the full published context.....which includes including Porvenir.

Everyone will draw their own conclusions.

And here it is for ease of reference. Interesting..

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SOLG/key-milestones-and-outlook-for-the-year-ahead-zsie2qi3u01170f.html

Worth reading the Company’s own RNS dated 18 November 2024.

In that announcement, SolGold states that the PFS mine plan covers, and I quote “just 18% of the resource” and also notes that consensus metal price assumptions are significantly higher than those used in the PFS base case.

This is important context. Only a few months before recommending a sale at 28p, the Company was itself highlighting limited mine plan coverage and price leverage.

And yet.......the Scheme Document, which is the Court-facing document for the vote, does not clearly restate that framing or embed that context in the same way.

This isn’t an allegation of wrongdoing. It’s a straightforward point about completeness of context when shareholders are being asked to approve a permanent sale at 28p per share.

SolGold’s own Corporate Presentation dated 13 May 2025 states that the 2024 Cascabel PFS mine plan covers 540Mt described as 18% of the total resource and it sets out the prices used ($3.85/lb copper, $1,750/oz gold, $22.50/oz silver).

That is important context when shareholders are being asked to approve a permanent sale.

The Scheme Document is the Court facing document for the vote, and it expressly states that website contents are not incorporated into it. In other words, unless key context is clearly set out within the Scheme materials themselves, it may not form part of what shareholders ( or the Court) are asked to consider.

This is not an allegation of wrongdoing. It is a straightforward point about completeness of context at the point of an irreversible decision.