RE: What is happening?4 Sep 2025 08:24
Morning All
Stack, have a look at the below. Solgold did well with the PFS. It was super conservative. NM has reminded folk of this many times. He knows much more about mining, Solgold and shares in the company than all of us put together. The thing is, this Company is in a great position, has an excellent new management team and, like Add, I find it reassuring that DV so frequently refers to 'grossly undervalued' share price as well as working in the interests of shareholders. He uses the word 'shareholders' far more than 'stakeholders' a word that sounds more suitable when Klaus Schwab uses it. Anyway, bravo DV and team. Super.
The SolGold Pre-Feasibility Study at Cascabel was based only on the Alpala deposit and, within that, only on a defined portion equivalent to around 18 percent of the project’s total resources. This means the study deliberately excluded the majority of the known mineralisation at Cascabel, including significant extensions and satellite targets.
Because the mine design, production schedule, and cost estimates were all constrained to that limited subset of the resource, the capital expenditure figure reported in the PFS looks disproportionately high relative to the ore tonnage considered. In effect, the Capex number reflects the cost of developing full scale infrastructure, processing, and supporting facilities, but the revenues and ore recovery used to offset those costs were capped at less than one fifth of the total resource base.
As further resources are converted to reserves and incorporated into future mine plans, the same upfront capital can be spread across a much larger ore tonnage and longer mine life. This means the current PFS Capex figure almost certainly overstates the cost per tonne of ore recovered, and understates the project’s ultimate economic returns.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
