Member Info for RodneyT

If — and I stress if — a formal all-cash offer were to land shortly, let’s say in the range of 100p from a credible bidder or bidders, that would bring forward proper price discovery in a way that no Telegram thread ever could. Such an event would render the 7p-8p market as nothing more than a transitory suppression — useful for those accumulating, painful for those diluted.

At that point, I imagine we’ll all wish we had asked a few more of the right questions a little earlier.

So my intention isn’t to argue. It’s simply to suggest that everyone — regardless of alignment or views — should consider the implications of what happens after the bid. Who knew what, when, and who may have assisted (actively or passively) in keeping the market asleep.

I didn't doubt that at all, Add.

PBOW,

Let’s address a few of your points directly, since you’ve made the effort to respond.

“You, Rodney and Cash” — not exactly a movement

Fair enough, we’re not running a hedge fund but this isn't about popularity contests. It’s about arithmetic. A market price of 7p versus an NAV of ~164p based on conservative assumptions isn't an opinion — it's a mathematical mismatch. Dismissing that on the basis that only a few people are pointing it out doesn’t actually change the facts. Truth doesn’t need a majority.

“The NAV sensitivity is still there, just differently presented”

That’s technically true — it’s buried in the PFS. But that’s precisely the point: it was removed from the most accessible investor presentations at the exact moment the company was awarding low-priced options and facilitating a discounted placement. Transparency isn’t just about burying data in a footnote and calling it good. If NAV wasn’t important, why was it ever shown?

“We needed Jiangxi’s money or we’d be out of cash”

Yes, but why Jiangxi? Why off-market? Why at 8.56p? Why not a properly structured rights issue or a bookbuild allowing wider participation? If 157 million shares had been bought in the open market, the price would’ve soared. Instead, a strategic buyer acquired a large position at a steep discount while retail shareholders were locked out. That’s not capital raising — that’s price avoidance.

“TSX delisting makes sense”

Perhaps operationally, yes. But it also conveniently removed Investment Canada Act scrutiny — just as the strategic register was consolidating. The timing is curious. It’s not wrong to ask whether this was coincidental or coordinated.

“None of the above, just passing time in taxis”

That’s fine — but you’ve gone to quite some effort (sitting in your numerous taxis) to argue every point made about valuation suppression, PRC accumulation, and insider alignment. It’s hard to square that with a supposedly casual interest.

In short, while I appreciate your tone and willingness to engage, the underlying facts remain. SolGold has not updated its NAV, allowed a strategic party to buy in at a suppressed price, and removed transparency just when shareholders needed it most. If pointing that out makes me a contrarian, I will wear that as a badge of honour. The truth and a fair outcomes for ALL shareholders are my quest.

That’s interesting Add, have a look at this:

Page 4 of Newmont’s latest AR

“We have shifted to three business units... Latin America and the Caribbean (LATAC)... each positioned to drive strategic growth...”

Page 5:

“Beyond these projects, Newmont boasts an unrivaled organic growth pipeline in both gold and copper. We continue to evaluate strategic expansion opportunities…”

Ecuador, already within LATAC, is a clear candidate for further strategic consolidation. Cascabel would complement Fruta del Norte.

Page 5:

“We are allocating $1.8 billion annually in sustaining capital... and $1.3 billion per year... toward high-value, strategic growth opportunities.”

Newmont has budgeted capital specifically for acquisitions and growth, even after the large Newcrest transaction.

Page 1,

Newmont defines Tier 1 assets as:

“(1) Production of over 500,000 GEOs/year, (2) AISC in the lower half of industry curve, (3) Mine life of over 10 years, and (4) Jurisdiction in A or B rating range countries (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch).”

Cascabel meets all four. Newmont’s own materials confirm it is building for “Tier 1 copper” growth — Cascabel is among the few remaining Tier 1 undeveloped projects globally.

Paul Smith may have misconstrued Newmont's stated strategic position.

JCC acquired 157 million shares off-market at 8.56p precisely to avoid triggering a price surge that would occur had they bought in the open market. This was not price discovery — it was price avoidance.

"The public and IIs were able to buy before that."

That’s technically correct, but the quantity available at ca 7p was trivial. Nobody could buy 157 million shares at that level without massively driving up the price.

Agree Stas20,

A full cash bid ( ca 60% of NAV so 100p, for example) would restore price discovery

SolGold shares trade at ca 7p, massively below NAV (ca 164p share on spot).

Jiangxi acquired 157m shares off-market at 8.56p — 48x average daily volume — without triggering price revaluation.

A public cash bid would reset the market and would force all parties into the open.

PBOW,

Newmont own just over 32% of Lundin which itself owns FDN so what it has or has not done with its direct shares in FDN is secondary. Newmont is well positioned in Ecuador. Of course, it also now owns around 10% of Solgold by virtue of its purchase of Newcrest so the company is doing a good job for the US in representing strategic interests in an increasingly important location for the US.

60% of NAV would be an excellent purchase, Quady (based on previous acquisitions such as Las Bambas) and the resultant ca 100p per share would likely enjoy Board support. BHP very much in the hunt for Solgold. Newmont and BHP together make a good strategic fit too. The former is the world's largest gold miner and the White House considers copper and gold part of a national-security emergency strategy. The Five Eyes alignment of the US, UK- based LSE and Australian- headquartered but London listed BHP is noteworthy. Geopolitical alignment seems to becoming more important day by day.

I have been posting here for a number of years so please check for yourself, PBOW.

Like BHP, Newmont also have a strategy of increasing Copper exposure having just reviewed their last AR.

Newmont also act as strategic advisers to Lundin and are not just Lundin's the largest shareholder.

With this, Filo and Fruta del Norte and BHP and Newmont's Solgold shareholdings, there is scope for strategic alliance.

PBOW, what I sketched yesterday was in good faith as are all my remarks here. I accept that since Jan 2025, Filo is owned 50/50 with Lundin. The rationale behind what I tabled still applies.

Lundin has an excellent reputation and has done well in Ecuador. In its Management Information Circular dated 19 March 2025, the Lundin family is shown to own around 26% of the shares in circulation. The largest shareholder with just over 32% of the shares was stated to be Newmont Corporation so I would think Lundin wouldn't mind sitting down to have a chat with BHP and Newmont about Filo. What do you think PBOW?

I have held a significant number of shares in Solgold since 2016.

There are so few available to buy relative to the ca 3 billion in circulation. Due the use of nominee accounts, it's tricky to see who is buying and selling shares and who owns them but the main things are that there are not many to buy and, in addition, the price that would be successful to buy the whole company rather than relatively few shares would be far higher than today's share price. Calculating this whole company price would largely relate to NAV although reference to the current SP may influence what an initial bid price would be if the strategy assumed that counterbids would come. The 'Knock Out' strategy deployed to acquire Oz Minerals is interesting to review. It was well done as was Glencore's Las Bambas deal overseen by our Non-Exec Chairman, Mr Smith.

BHP’s 2024 Annual Report provides clear signals that the company is under pressure to execute a major copper acquisition before the close of its financial year on 30 June 2025. While no company is named directly, the alignment of strategic focus, asset profile, and timing pressures strongly suggest that a transaction involving SolGold would be both timely and aligned with stated corporate priorities.

Page 14: “We have sharpened our focus on copper and potash as commodities that are expected to benefit from global megatrends such as decarbonisation, electrification and population growth.”

Page 17: “Our strategy is designed to create long-term value... through a portfolio of tier one assets in future-facing commodities, particularly copper and potash.”

Page 17: “We are focused on copper and potash as commodities where we can pursue opportunities for high-return growth through our existing assets, exploration and early-stage entry into tier one resources.”

Page 13: BHP defines tier one assets as large-scale, low-cost, long-life, ESG-aligned, and located in stable jurisdictions—a profile that matches SolGold’s Cascabel and Porvenir projects.

Page 5: “We maintained a strong balance sheet... and ended the period with net debt of US$0.9 billion. This enables us to maintain capital discipline while pursuing opportunities aligned with our strategy.”

Page 17: “We are investing in high-quality growth options... and we retain flexibility to pursue value-accretive M&A where it aligns with our strategy and risk appetite.”

Page 14: “We are in a strong position to continue reshaping our portfolio and capital allocation priorities as we enter FY2025, which will be pivotal for long-term value creation.”

Despite the fact that BHP has acquired copper resources via the Filo, Kitlanya and Resolution deals so far this company year, without SolGold, BHP is likely to fall short of its 2 Mtpa copper goal unless another major acquisition occurs.

SolGold remains the only advanced-stage Tier 1 copper-gold project available at scale and undervaluation, and its acquisition would substantially derisk BHP's copper trajectory. BHP’s FY25 acquisitions so far are major copper projects, but not Tier 1 by market or technical standard.

Pbow, what part of what I have surmised is inaccurate? I put forward a scenario where Newmont might be happier to sell their Solgold shares. That's it. 'Lost all credibility'. Did you really mean that?

Thank you, Cash. I've been out most of the day today but will be back working on this tomorrow. Cheers

I've had a look and I can't find any companies where BHP and Newmont are joint venturing currently. Please correct me if this is wrong.

The reason I've been looking is becuase those Solgold shares Newmont own by virtue of the Newcrest takeover are highly strategic. In the event that Newmont decide not to bid for Solgold either themselves or via a JV, I have been thinking about PR and how a company such as BHP could make things more attractive for Newmont. One idea I had was Filo.

BHP owns around15% of Filo Mining (as of 2024), which controls the large copper-gold-silver Filo del Sol project in Chile/Argentina.

Newmont is familiar with high-altitude copper/gold projects and is already invested in Latin America (e.g. Yanacocha, Cerro Negro).

BHP could propose to bring Newmont in directly either into the Filo project via a joint purchase of Lundin’s remaining stake, or through a broader JV across Vicuña Belt targets.

This type of gesture might help both companies which is why something like this could be plausible.

BHP did so well acquiring Oz Minerals. They were bold, decisive and ended up paying a fair price, avoiding auctions and gaining a valuable reserve.

BHP now faces a binary choice at SolGold. Either it channels its Oz Minerals playbook — pre-empt, bid hard and clean, win the prize.

Or it repeats Noront — gets outmaneuvered by a strategic, well-funded rival who values resource control more than valuation maths.

The stakes are higher now than with Oz:

Copper shortfall is worsening.

PRC SOEs are expanding.

Cascabel is at the perfect buyout window: PFS done, FS pending, price bombed out, but the rocks are world-class. (hope those last few words made you chuckle, folks) :-) he's still around and has millions of shares.

If BHP fails to act now, it may be remembered as the company that missed three transformational copper deals in three years — and let a Tier 1 asset slip into Chinese hands, despite having every opportunity to move first.

Really good article PBOW and thanks for posting.

Quite a bit of the article's content refers to points I made earlier today and yesterday and it is quite clear that China is making big gains towards becoming Ecuador's Number 1 trading partner and replace the US (the West) in doing so.The Primicias report signals that Chinese ambitions in Ecuador are intensifying, with coordinated economic, political, and resource plays. However, BHP retains a clear strategic window in my view—if it moves boldly and soon. The Noboa-Xi summit is a natural deadline. After that, Chinese influence may become institutionalised, limiting BHP’s room to manoeuvre.

Thank you PBOW, Let me have a look at your latest attachment and I will comment shortly.

Good to know, thanks for the update.