Member Info for RodneyT

Why do you believe Tandy could be value destructive, PBOW?

If the outlook is postive we would be pleased but if it is not then what have we actually lost apart from the fees involved to find out the answer? These are modest in the picture of things.

Thank you, Damers. Concerning NM, whislt I have no connection to him in anyway whatsover, I do respect him in relation to his career achievements and, in particular, for his efforts on behalf of small shareholders during the period immediately before and after the AGM 2020.

I am not connected in anyway to NM. The group can act as one quickly as/when it needs to do so.

PBOW,

I accept your points about Cangrejos.

Cascabel is a large copper-gold project with a mine life of over 50 years, while Cangrejos is mainly a gold project expected to run for about 25 years. Cascabel stands out because it has much more copper, giving it higher overall metal value and making it more attractive to majors that are targeting long-life copper assets for the energy transition. Cangrejos, being mostly gold with limited copper, doesn’t have the same appeal to copper-focused buyers.

In terms of ore quality, Cascabel has a clear edge. The high-grade core of the Alpala deposit includes copper equivalent grades over 1%, with some areas going beyond 1.5% CuEq. The gold grades in that core are also solid, averaging close to 1 g/t, with some long intercepts above that. These grades support strong early cash flow in a block-cave setup. Cangrejos, on the other hand, averages about 0.55 g/t AuEq, which is quite low for a bulk-tonnage gold deposit and leaves it more exposed to cost inflation and metal price swings.

Cascabel is also further along in development, having completed a PFS with a DFS on the way. Cangrejos has done a PFS too, but it's not as technically advanced and hasn’t moved toward final engineering or permitting yet.

Cascabel also carries more strategic weight globally because of its size and copper dominance. Cangrejos, while still a large deposit, hasn’t generated the same kind of interest from a wide range of majors.

That’s why Cangrejos has only realised around 10 to 15 percent of its NAV, whereas Cascabel, could realise a more usual 80% to 110% of its NAV. There is also Tandy, Porvenir and the other tenements to consider, Tandy in the context of being part of Cascabel but possibly able to start gold production faster via open pit mining.

In summary, Cascabel and the resources of Solgold more broadly, justify a significantly larger prospective factor to NAV.

I'm 'obsessed' about absolutely nothing, Eloro. My stated objective is a fair outcome for all small shareholders. Millions of cheap options caught my attention as did the fact that they immediately vest on change of control. I have also referred to NAV, MAR 17 (4) and Paul Smith's credentials and his good work with Las Bambas. I am sorry that you are sore about something Eloro but I am not sure how best to help.

Have a lovely day, Eloro.

We are still within Q2. It is not Q3 just yet. Once it is Q3, it will be time to reflect on the words and actions of this Board over the last 3 months or so. We don't know what the rest of the day will bring. I will present my NAV examples later today in any event.

PBOW, Stas20 estimated a current NAV for Solgold of 164p. Do you agree or disagree that Stas20 figure is about right. If you don't, which part(s) of the calculations he set out along with his references to RC and HP papers were wrong so that 164p is hugely overstated? Please set out your position carefully so that we can clearly see where Stas20 went wrong. I am sure he will be happy to be corrected if he has made a mistake.

Framed by you PBOW. Selected from your own a la carte menu. I shall present several M&A examples between 0.8 and 1.1 X NAV in the morning. In the meantime, Stas20 calculated a NAV 164p estimate for Solgold showing workings and based on spot prices and RC and HP reports. On what basis is this ramping? Also, why do you defend the deletion of the sensitivity analysis so stoutly? Small shareholders need to have a clear estimate of the value of the Company. Why is that a problem? I have referred to MAR 17 (4) many times and it us a plausible reason why the company is so silent at present on this vital issue. As I said, I will come up with several M&A examples in the morning. In the meantime, which part of Stas20's calculations were wrong, PBOW? Which parts were deliberately deceitful and designed to project away from the truth? Please show me and the other readers why Stas20 is a 'ramper' as you casually refer to him as.

What part of Stas20 revised NAV figure to take account of current spot prices and based on RC and HP reports would amount to 'ramping' PBOW? Stas20 presented these figures having been alerted to the sensitivity analysis deletion by needagain. Stas20 presented his current NAV estimate and backed this up with his calculations and sources (the latter being the company's own brokers). What Stas20 did was not 'ramping' not at all. Stas20 presented a good picture of fair value so that we could all see that. He provided a service that, for whatever reason, the company has not provided. Stas20 and Needabrain have both made excellent contributions here over the last 2 weeks. Nothing Stas20 has done has been tantamount to 'ramping'. He has simply sought clarity and truth. I have no idea why you chastise him for that. Incidentally, I will continue to work for a fair outcome for all small shareholders here even as/when I do well myself. The work won't stop and I will keep going. I can only speak for what I will do and I have said the above more than once and won't be deleting my posts so my comments can be checked at any stage by anyone.

I'll address your questions tomorrow PBOW. The weather's too nice to do a proper job now. My goal is a fair outcome for all small shareholders. What's your goal, PBOW?

PM, At the top table where actual deals are done, we looked at many examples 2 weeks ago which clearly demonstrated that M &A in this sector are concluded time and time again at a 0.8 to 1.1 x NAV level. Las Bambas and Paul Smith's involvement was referred to I particular both because we know him as our Chairman and to give him credit for a good job done. BHP voting for some derisory offer is an off the scale silly notion. Anyone thinking along those lines should have a look at the M &A examples from 2 weeks ago ad well as review BHP 2024 AR. Anyone can buy a share or 2 in solgold for about 7p. The company can't be purchased for 7p a share or anywhere near as this is only about 0.04% of NAV! It is a bit like a partnership. All partners but some partners are more partners than other partners. Some have 20% equity in the firm. Others have 0.1% equity. Real business here relates to NAV. Eligible bidders know this full well and are not at all phased by this. Deckchair shuffling is not what we want here. A clear statement on NAV is needed but perhaps that cannot happen currently. It just cannot. Time will tell.

Stas 20 and Needabrain did all long term small shareholders a fine service 2 weeks ago reminding us about the removed sensitivity analysis and the fundamental importance of NAV and, critically, updated NAV. For 2025 to date, NAV is clearly a sore point for DV and his executive colleagues and there could be many reasons for this including the granting of millions of options at insanely low prices, complicated deals being sketched by advisers or consultants which work best in relation to fee generation if they are as obscure and complicated as possible or, more recently, MAR 17 (4) considerations as well as TPP codification of activities during Rule 2.7 related periods. Whichever way one looks at it, a clear statement covering current NAV from the Board is what is needed. Projecting away to the minutiae of A, B, C or whatever is not what is required. A clear focus on current NAV and a few comments about how this relates to the absurdly low share price. The Board seems incapable of doing this which is why I keep coming back to MAR (17) 4. I am not suggesting any wrong doing by the Board, I am suggesting a legitimate reason why the company cannot do the blooming obvious thing to do at this moment in time.

If certain, large Western miners don't pull their finger out sooner rather than later in relation to this asset then, frankly, they deserve to lose it and flush the West further down the toilet in doing so. It's not good enough to have fancy statements about goals all over annual reports. Only action gets results. Slip sliding away. Nice song that.

Rearranging deck chairs, burning thru cash and other paper clip counting activities usually only benefit 'consultants' and 'advisers' in companies. I don't think Solgold is any different. Meanwhile, a whole country and many large businesses as well as the world at large needs Cascabel to have a robust road map to production as soon as the latter can be achieved. That won't be by Solgold. It and its advisers are too small. Let's start by having a clear statement about the current NAV of the business from the Board.

MAR 17 (4) This is an area of much interest to me currently. Many things make more sense to me on the basis of MAR 17 (4).

Let's get Monday out of the way one way or another and we can then press on. Missing deadlines would not be OK. We want proper standards at this company. No deadlines have been missed for Q2 as yet so patience is key. Monday come and gone first up then press on from there.

Who knows what will happen? It is a group of the willing. Nobody was forced to join. Volunteers only. Let's get Monday out of the way and go from there. Based on many things that have happened ( and not happened) over the last 30 days,Q2 is not over just yet. Let's see what Monday brings. By the way, what happened to DV's Q &A W/C 23 June 2025?

Thanks PS. Monday it is, then. If not, then back to the drawing board and press on.

To be clear, I expect transformational news by the end of Q2. As things stand, it looks as if I am mistaken. That's life and that's business!

I am very surprised by what is happening in the company at the moment. It is unexpected that we have not yet received any update relating to Q2 2025. Given the importance of this period, an announcement would typically have been made by now.

That said, there are two points worth noting. First, RNSs can be issued outside normal market hours, so an update may still be forthcoming at any time. Second, the end of Q2 is 23:59:59 on Monday, 30 June 2025, so there is technically still time remaining.

Nonetheless, the lack of communication at this stage remains surprising and unusual.