Member Info for RodneyT

Just over 2%. Better than 0.002% I guess, well, that was the idea. As complicated as that, a real masterstroke :-)

It's a decent group, Fort. Proper debate and no abuse. We don't talk day to day but we are united and ready to work as one as/when the need arises. Some influential members too. It took a bit of time to arrange but it was worth it. If anyone wants to join, just email in. solgsmallshareholders@gmail.com

:-) Oh, Eloro, words fail me. I hope you can calm yourself one day. Don't you know that so much happens in day to day life that folk prefer not to broadcast? You do? Well, remember that.

“A definitive plan for the vehicle will be announced in Q2 2025.”

That was the clear commitment in the 4 March RNS, approved by DV. Q2 has now ended, and we’ve seen no plan, no explanation, and no acknowledgment of the missed deadline. The latter would have been easy to provide and would have set the scene well in relation to the new regime and how they operate.

Given the absurdly low share price, the absence of a NAV update, and the continued lack of clarity around key assets like Cascabel Main and TAM, it’s hard not to recall MAR 17(4). There is a real risk that shares have been steadily accumulated by various entities just under the threshold via nominee accounts over the past 4 months as the AR short has held the share price in a narrow (and predictable?) band. This raises concerns about potential creeping control of the company.

All the while, BHP’s financial year-end has come and gone in complete silence.

At a time when transparency is more important than ever, this continued opacity is difficult to understand or justify.

You are welcome to join the group if you would like to do so Eloro. One thing, though, we have a 'one strike and you're out' policy on abuse so if you can't keep it civil then it might not be for you. solgsmallshareholders@gmail.com

The weather is so hot Eloro, I was just thinking this could be why you are so abusive this morning? Sorry about that. I'll be making some points later but won't be responding in kind. This is a debating board after all. No place here for distractions.

:-) my, you seem such an angry person Eloro! Genuinely sorry about that.

Have a good evening, all.

PBOW, TAM will likely be mined regardless because of its dual role: as a source of fill for the TSF and as a source of gold and copper. The current narrative around TAM’s importance could be influenced by strategic considerations. While it may appear that TAM’s uncertainty brings Cascabel Main’s viability into question, the project’s overall viability is much more robust than this uncertainty suggests.

This perspective suggests that any emphasis on TAM’s uncertainty might be a strategic move, potentially to influence market perception or valuation in the context of a potential acquisition. TAM remains a strategic asset that adds value to the overall project.

Folks,

The situation at TAM is fairly simple. Obviously we all (well, I think we all??) want it to be a successful AU and CU open pit mine and for this eventuality to be announced by the company as soon as possible. BUT: If this scenario does not play out exactly, Cascabel (Main ) and therefore the prospects and value of our key assets are still fine because:

TAM only needs to be mined for gold and copper as part of the main project.

If it is included in the mine plan and treated as a source of ore, the rock that comes out with it can be used for the TSF.

That rock is then treated as a by-product of mining, not as imported fill.

TAM does not need to be economic on its own. It just needs to be mined as part of the overall project.

This avoids having to classify the activity as construction, which would increase costs and trigger more complex permits.

Mining TAM for low grade ore justifies using the rock for TSF purposes and keeps the whole Cascabel plan workable.

In short, it is not essential for TAM to be an economic mine, it just has to be a mine. All the major players will know this as will the company.

I have read the PFS, PBOW. My construction ability is restricted to residential property. We already know enough about TAM to conclude that it will either be good for Solgold or really good. It won't be bad. That's why the current projection and narrative are odd. The PFS is clear as are the host of external examples showing precedent. I guess some think that small investors don't read big documents. (Although just over 300 pages isn't that big of its type).

The PFS shows there is AU at TAM. It doesn't matter if it is uneconomic to mine. The main act is Cascabel (Main). A TSF is needed. Mine TAM for AU, use the rock for the TSF. It is therefore not imported.

Not possible based on the PFS and the needs of Cascabel (Main). Doesn't need to be economic (although it is pretty likely that it will be). Again, TAM being a super success AU mine would be lovely to have but an uneconomic mine would be fine too. The crown jewel is Cascabel (Main) and an uneconomic TAM AU mine would support the main act well. It is odd how much importance the company's advisers and consultants have put on the importance of a super success TAM AU mine to the main act. Projecting away for some reason.

PBOW, just to clarify, I accept that rock being a 'by-product' at TAM is best even if production is uneconomic. The company knows there is AU at TAM and that is set out in the PFS. Based in the latter,Based on the PFS figures, the recoverable gold from TAM is worth around 3.39 billion US dollars. This assumes a gold recovery rate of 75 percent and a gold price of 2300 dollars per ounce.

Although TAM is not a high grade deposit, it clearly has economic value. That makes it reasonable for SolGold to develop it under mining terms. It also means that the rock used for the tailings facility can be treated as a by-product rather than as imported construction material. That helps reduce the overall cost burden of the TSF and supports the case for continuing with the current mine plan. Sorry for not making this point previously.

Don't agree at all with that PBOW.

There is plenty of precedent for mines using waste or low-grade rock from nearby deposits (like TAM) to construct Tailings Storage Facilities (TSFs). In fact, it's an established best practice in both cost control and geotechnical design. Check out Oyu Tolgoi, Quellaveco, Red Chris, KSM Project and Fruta del Norte. All using a variety of this theme. TAM mining AU is a LOVELY to have. It is not at all a make or break for it to do so. Mining for rock would still be fine.

I've built two houses but I know nothing about mine technicalities. What I do know is that TAM can be used as a geotechnical asset if need be. The current projection that TAM is the be all and end all is a projection. TAM producing open pit mined AU would be tremendous but whether this happens or not will not determine the success of Cascabel proper. I accept that the TSF is vital. I also accept that importing rock could be prohibitively expensive. No need to do the latter though. Using rock from TAM is just fine. BHP, NMM and JCC will all know this I am sure.

TAM is a nice to have and could be an excellent addtion to what we have already. But it is not the be all and end all of things no matter what external advisers and consultants wish to project at this time. Cascabel (Main) and block caving is the star act. If need be, TAM can be used as a 'geotechnical asset' rather than a 'mining one'. If need be, mine TAM for the rock.

Not quite, PBOW. Even if it is uneconomic to mine TAM for AU or CU, there is no need to import rock for the TSF. TAM can be mined purely to provide the required rock for the TSF and so avoid the need for (prohibitively?) expensive importing of rock.

In your opinion...which I wholly accept you have a right to. I have set out the basis for the 100p figure and believe it to be realistic. H&P have 57p based on very old metal prices and little value added for Porvenir and other tenements.

I meant to ask, why would it be a disaster now to sell Cascabel/Solgold (at a comensurate price to NAV)? I have referred to 100p previously based on a NAV of 164p?