Member Info for RodneyT

As I said, PBOW, we have different opinions. We'll see how things pan out.

Schedule 1, para.3 of the Act specifically lists extraction and mining activities for a comprehensive range of materials, including copper, gold, lithium, rare earth elements, nickel, cobalt, and many others . Based in this reference, the Act could well apply. If so, this is supportive of BHP and Newmont.

Well let's see, Pbow. We both have an opinion on which we disagree. I am satisfied that Solgold's assets combined with certain members of its share register, their locations and where the company is listed all align with 'Five Eyes interests' and that the whole scenario is regarded by the parties in question as both critical and strategic. Perhaps I am wrong but perhaps you are? Time will tell.

It applies to 17 sectors including critical minerals. Are Copper, Gold and Silver construed as 'critical'?

National Security and Investment Act (2021). Highly relevant UK legislation.

Hi Iky and thanks for all your work here. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that this company significantly over-promised at its 2023 AGM and has done pretty hopelessly since then in under-delivering. What are your thoughts on this? Am I being too harsh?

BHP, Newmont, their respective shareholders and the Western world's governments do not want China to control critical minerals. This group is far from toothless.....

After weeks of digging into this ( ;-) ), I don’t see the PRC taking control of Cascabel. If anything, they might walk away with Porvenir or one of the lesser assets but not the crown jewel. That’s where the evidence seems to lead, though I’ll admit I could be wrong. As for BS, he strikes me as someone far more impressed with himself than the results justify.

The US is Ecuador's number 1 trading partner, China is number 2 and the gap is closing. Exactly the same for DN's family business. China now number 1 provider of finance for extracting industries in Ecuador. There is a real risk that the West could lose a valuable strategic asset were Cascabel to end up in PRC hands.

Agreed, CMG. Friday carries particular weight in my view. The broader contest between BRICS and non-BRICS powers increasingly revolves around securing critical resources.

The points I have made about NAV are backed by the reports prepared by the company's brokers and the current spot prices. The use of NAV in bidding situations has also been clearly evidenced with examples. Finally, I have commented on why the company may not wish to restate NAV now and the possibiltiy that MAR 17 (4) may apply.

I agree, Add. While PS’s formal title is Non-Executive Chairman, I can’t imagine someone of his calibre signing up just to nod politely and collect biscuits. At this stage of his career, he’s not here to warm a chair ,he’s here to move the table. I revert to your and Red's opinions of PS and his skills/motives.

Bearing in mind all relevant factors, MAR 17 (4) keeps coming back into focus for me. If June 30th comes and goes without significant news then I believe my views will change.

Thanks Red.

Concerning PS, it's an excellent point you make about options and lack thereof. I've had no contact with PS but have carefully noted Add's comments and also acknowledge the sound and solid work PS undertook for Glencore in relation to Las Bambas.

If PS is the surgeon, BS still owns the hospital, the nurses, and the billing desk. Hard to fix the patient when Maxit keeps swapping the charts. I wonder what BHP and Newmont think about all this? They are both businesses of a size and success BS can only dream of and they'll have plenty of strategy and expertise of their own to deploy.

DFS or ExploreCo? Fine by me. Just hope it’s not another magic trick where the insiders get steak and we get the sizzle.

Thank you Red, may I play devil’s advocate?

Cascabel holds the core value, so why shift the attention elsewhere, delete the sensitivity analysis, and not update NAV? Why do all this?

If the goal is to unlock value, wouldn’t the simplest path be to show the market what Cascabel is really worth?

Why float new assets when the flagship has not yet been priced properly?

Is this truly about clarity and value discovery, or about creating enough noise and movement to distract from the main event?

Some might say it echoes GG. Spinouts, options, insiders getting in early, retail left watching from the sidelines. Just chance? Or a pattern repeating?

Good morning Add,

I’m with you on PS. As I said yesterday, here’s hoping we’re entering a post-adviser era i.e. one with fewer fees, fewer PowerPoints, and fewer mystery men in the background.

As for BS, his comments about two of our largest shareholders said far more about him than them. Since his famous “fast and smart” line 30 months ago, we’ve seen a 55% drop in the share price. Not so much fast and smart as slow and painful. Frankly, I’ve had my fill of strategic reviews, ‘clever’ detours and strategic gymnastics that ignore the core value staring us all in the face.

Paul Smith clearly has a pivotal role to play. And with BHP and Newmont on the register, we’re not exactly short of heavyweight backing. The idea that M/BS is some kind of ‘counterbalance’ to a BHP–Newcrest “faction” is a stretch; the kind of projection that tells you more about the speaker than the supposed balance.

Not incorrect at the time it was printed, IP. A few days later, BS was replaced in the role by DV.

Maxit’s approach is often characterised by:

A combative deal-making style, frequently opting for high-stakes manoeuvres over collaborative negotiation.

Tight alignment with known insiders and recurring counterparties, raising questions around independence and process integrity.

A clear preference for structures that generate significant advisory fees, sometimes at the cost of broader shareholder returns.

Complex and non-transparent financing arrangements, which can obscure true value and limit scrutiny.

An indifference to retail holders, who are typically left exposed to dilution, illiquidity, or sidelined in favour of institutional allies.

It is excellent news that we now have a Chairman with a good pedigree.

Yes I was. The article I referred to mentions SC and DV as Cornerstone appointees ( so, Maxit) and "significant in shaping the balance of power on the board against the BHP and Newcrest 'faction' ". How strange to refer to major shareholders like that.

There appears to be a clear shift away from a model in which intermediaries exercised excessive influence and profited handsomely, while shareholders absorbed the operational risk and financial downside.

In the infamous 'baseball bat' article of 17 Nov 2022 ("fast and smart rather than slow and stupid, rumble in the jungle, they are about to enter a scrap with guys like me, for six years the biggest liability on Solgold has been BHP and Newcrest"... I could go on) BS and Citi are referred to as jointly 'running the strategic review'.

Were we all aware that BS had this role? Bear in mind that his company Maxit are the company's corporate advisers which also owns about 5% of the company. Could this be why we did not have a Chairman after LT left in Dec 2023 until PS was appointed this year?

Fast and smart. The share price is down 55% in the 31 months since those modest words were uttered.