Member Info for RodneyT

Smick, please let the man talk. This is a board for all investors. RBM is civil and polite. He has a right to an opinion. Please let him talk. We don't have cancel culture here.

The CEO himself referred to a derisked NAV of 165p a few weeks ago on his LinkedIn page. That has to be our North Star as private investors. What does 'derisked' mean? Could mean copper funding, CIPA filed, revised PFS or other things. DV will drive this forward. There will be no cheap sale of Solgold. Watch the next few weeks.

OK E, will do so later from laptop.

MG,

Go to the box top left and put in Stas20. All his posts will come up. DV hit the nail on the head in his LinkedIn post and came up with a similar number. Very straightforward if you do your homework MG. Just look the PFS, reassess based on 100% of resource, recompute with up to date resource prices then factor in the paradigm shift which is TAM. The latter is a stronger factor since Stas20 did his sums so there is upside in the 165p estimate of Stas20 and our CEO Dan Vujcic. The point is, MG, broker forecasts in the mid 40s are way off. Solgold owns 2 Tier 1 resources along with other highly prospective tenements. It also has clear plans including financing to take TAM to production in the short to medium term. It is clear as a bell, the NAV estimate in the mid 160s is entirely plausible. Stas20 and Mad Jack were the first to refer to this back when we were in the 7s and posters here were rattling on about raises at 5p. This is an excellent company with excellent management. We are now in a takeover window for at least 2 Tier 1 assets. And if that comes to nothing, the Company will continue to derisk and at the same time move towards production backed by its financiers. The beauty of the situation created by the Board is simply that suitors have to pay a fair price for some or all of our assets or we go to production leaving them behind.

Fort, BHP and Newmont together dominate JCC at Solgold. Whether they end up acting together is a different matter but a review of their respective annual reports as well as the recent move by Ron Hochstein could mean that things are moving in relation to this outcome.

MG, already done back in May 2025 by Stas20. Check his posts and you will find his workings. He estimate was 165p a share, since agreed with by CEO DV via his LinkedIn page for a de-risked asset.

I suspect so MC and, as I mentioned earlier, the current share register has about 57% of shares held by Western-leaning institutions each holding less than 3% of the issued share capital.

They are indeed PS. Mirador and Porvenir are close to eachother in the Eastern Andes.

PS, I agree that this is a direct competition between East and West. My opinion is that the West will win this one with China getting some type of consolation prize such as Porvenir.

Not really. JCC now have a deadline to meet otherwise they have to push off for 6 months. Others can make an offer as and when. Of course, this includes other Chinese entities even though the PRC effectively controls all of these despite most of them pleading they are independent.

They have lost a fortune on the face of it since opening their short on March 2025. Whether they have actually lost anything or not is moot. Who knows what their short deal actually comprises of?

Thank you Dr Qu. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Not that bothered. We have a plan to advance TAM and then the rest of Cascabel to production. We also have the backing of a world class streaming team and the leadership of a terrific and experienced management team. There is no begging bowl at Solgold. The Chinese can come back if they want to. If they don't, fine. We're moving forward and derisking all the time. Holding the share price back? Are examples of that ActusRay Partners and their short and predictions of 5p placements? Well those did well, didn't they? No, the Company has its own positive momentum now. A virtuous circle. Well done DV and team with plenty more to come soon.

Because the point is moot, please see below:

The UK treats Norges Bank and the Government Pension Fund Global as separate persons unless Norges Bank has explicit voting control across both accounts.

The normal arrangement is:

• GPFG votes beneficially according to its own policy guidelines

• Norges Bank executes trades but does not control GPFG’s voting strategy

• Norges Bank may also hold its own positions separately

This means their holdings are not automatically added together for DTR reporting.

This is why you can see:

• Norges Bank at about 2.9 percent

• GPFG at about 2.8 percent

and no disclosure, because neither crosses the 3 percent threshold on its own and the UK does not require aggregation unless both are clearly acting as a single controlling party.

I asked the opinion of Add and others because my interpretation was just that and not certain. The data shown are facts.

Here is what I said earlier:

I referred to the Norges Bank holding showing at 82, 875,000. Right underneath that is showing 'Norges Bank Government Pension Fund Global' with 81, 151,629 shares owned and the last change a buy of 1,129,838 on 6 Nov 2025. With ca 3.002bn shared issued, the Norwegians appear to own 5.46% of the company i.e. these 2 holdings need to be added. Key aspect I guess which is why I checked with a colleague. What do you think Add and others?

The data is a statement, the interpretation is moot which is why I asked for the opinion of Add and the whole board. It is a moot point.

Stack, the EXACT references are as I stated. The interpretation is moot, the references are not.

Stack, please take ownership of your offensive behaviour. Your projection trashing experts you don't even know reflects on you and you only. By the way, 5p raise. When is that happening? Please advise or apologise.

We have a Western majority current share register at Solgold. Personally, I am thinking Vicuna, Ron Hochstein and something happening soon. I see JCC almost certainly failing as/when Vicuna turn up. If they don't and nobody else does, JCC can make a revised offer acceptable to the Board or they can go away and come back in 6 months' time whilst the company presses on with construction at TAM along with other de-risking measures.

Agree once again RBM. Newbies, there are many excellent posters on here who have stated time and time again that, whilst not perfect, Solgold is a company that owns some tremendous assets. If you are unsure and don't know who to believe, review these 3 facts: 1. Around 34% of Solgold shares are owned by 3 majors, JCC, Newmont and BHP. 2. The last PFS refers to only 18% of the company's assets and is based on extremely low prices such as $1750 gold. 3. 56.6% of the shares are currently owned by sub 3% institutions which is a huge increase from 1 January 2025. Moreover, DV himself referred to a derisked NAV of 164p in his LinkedIn post 2 months ago, the very figure estimated by Stas20 in May 2025. JCC have been outed by the Board. Takeover Panel rules now apply and Rule 8 in particular.

Not sure, NMM, not sure. If I had to say, I think they are separate and should be added but cannot be sure.

Add, Here's the thing, I just checked the share register today and then double checked my interpretation with a colleague who agrees with what I am about to say. I referred to the Norges Bank holding showing at 82, 875,000. Right underneath that is showing 'Norges Bank Government Pension Fund Global' with 81, 151,629 shares owned and the last change a buy of 1,129,838 on 6 Nov 2025. With ca 3.002bn shared issued, the Norwegians appear to own 5.46% of the company i.e. these 2 holdings need to be added. Key aspect I guess which is why I checked with a colleague. What do you think Add and others?