Member Info for RodneyT

Quady and PS

Let me tell you, it's wonderful reading you two having a proper chat about things and you're both cool. I absolutely love it. We're all Solgold shareholders here. I hope we can see one another in that context as something important we have in common. I admire you both for being able to put your differences to one side and chat as you have. Very inspiring. Just like DV and the new team at Solgold.

Good morning all and thank you Gardie.

"The grades at surface look compelling"

That's a wonderful comment from our CEO isn't it?

Well done DV and team.

They did indeed, Fort. DV has said he's been busy courting IIs. I wonder if the latter bought plenty today?

Agree, NMM. Wasn't at all happy at the start of his tenure but, to me, he and his team have proved themselves and now have my full support. If DV walks away with £15m in due course, I would be delighted to arrange a party for him, his colleagues and all of us!

PBOW,

We all guess about the future intentions of the company here as we are not insiders and, in that context, we don't know much at all. It's not a problem that our opinions differ. Time will tell and, in any case, we're just spectators.

PBOW,

I think the key difference in our views is that you believe mining at TAM has to be economically viable in order for Solgold to use waste rock for the TSF whereas I do not based on a similar approach taken by other miners worldwide. i.e. uneconomic mining, per se, is made viable due to other needs elsewhere in the operation.

PBOW,

It’s not possible to know for sure yet. Both options are technically feasible. The PEP shows waste rock characterisation at TAM, so it is under consideration. Ultimately, time will tell what SolGold intends to do.

PBOW,

I don't necessarily agree with that in that using uneconomic nearby sources of rock for other strategic purposes is common practice in the mining world.

Time will tell what Solgold intend to do.

Not every drill hole will be a success in porphyry exploration and some are deliberately drilled to mark boundaries.

That explains why holes 59, 61, and 63 came in below cut-off, while holes 60 and 65 delivered strong, shallow intercepts that would be considered economic by global open-pit standards. Hole 57 was in line with expectations. TAM continues to confirm thick, near-surface mineralisation, especially with hole 65 and the earlier standout hole 58, which are the type of results that drive starter-pit economics. The addition of a possible third pit at TAM West is good news of course.

Concerning waste rock and the tailings facility, SolGold has said testing is under way but nothing is yet confirmed. In practice, many large mines do exactly this even if parts of an early pit are uneconomic as ore, the waste rock is still mined and used to build critical site infrastructure like tailings dams. As you know, I expect Solgold to use waste rock from TAM in this way for the TSF because I think it is reasonable to expect SolGold will take the same approach, which means TAM is not just about ore grades but also about enabling the larger block cave and wider project.

Case A – Not optimistic

Directors didn’t buy because they don’t expect near-term upside. The market seems to agree: price has already fallen to the placing level (0.8p). Risk is further drift or more dilution if no asset sales materialise.

Case B – Restricted by insider info

Directors didn’t buy because they may already be restricted by advanced asset sale talks. If so, the 0.8p placing level could prove a floor, with scope for a sharp re-rate if an RNS confirms disposals

Understood PS - cheers

PS, please see my post. Good not great. But they're not 'crap'.

PBOW,

I disagree.

As I said previously,on balance, today’s RNS is positive by global standards. It confirms TAM has intercepts that would be considered economic in comparable open pits worldwide

The poor holes (59, 61, 63) don’t drag it into “bad” territory, because they simply define the edges. What counts are the strong, shallow runs in 60 and 65, which are globally competitive.

So: today’s RNS is good, not great, but certainly not bad. Of course it is your choice if you wish to see today's news as bad.

They're not 'crap grades' PS. I checked them earlier against various other similar projects worldwide. They're just not as stellar as the August ones. Overall, they are good. Steady as she goes.

Gee, I hope you are right, Iky. Quite upset with GLR now and for a variety of reasons. Still, I know you are much more informed than I so, as I say, I hope you are right.

... included those famous words...' The stock market is designed to transfer wealth from the active to the patient'. 13.5 million shares traded so far today. 180 Day average daily volume is 7.26 million. 10.10 am saw a 900,000 share trade showing as a buy for just over £149,000. Is that evidence of II's buying after a little tree shake earlier on?

Good morning All,

Had a good look at this now and thought about it in the context of August's news, industry standards worldwide and our other assets. My conclusion based on all this?

TAM’s results so far are good by global industry standards and confirm its role as a credible open pit starter mine. Today's annoucement was positive incremental news, building toward a larger, de-risked project. TAM West was a pleasant surprise and don't forget that TAM as a whole is a fairly small element of the resources Solgold owns with Cascabel block cave being the jewel in the crown (so far).

Summary: Very happy with today's news. Solid and sturdy. Builds nicely on developments over the last 6 months. Good work DV and team.

#keyword, etc..

PS, completely agree with your last point.

My car was in great shape and unmodified. Still got a rubbish payout. Anyway, life moves on. Wonder when we'll get the TAM results? DV referred to 'next week', last week I think so anytime from now I guess.