Maybe we could have seen something coming but ... torpedos are hard to spot. We’re holed on the waterline & knee deep under water. The bridge is not responding. A simple statement Responding to the situation...we understand the concerns & frustrations of investors, particularly so after your fantastic response on the AGM result, but alpala is still economically viable, it’s just that we’re working on improving every facet of design deliver & consequentially return that will require a few more months of drilling & iteration. Might have been a bit better than “if” . I need this to pay for my divorce- get some message out or were drifting taking in water.
Not sure I follow any of the logic suggested for the lack of news particularly drilling updates. Silence promotes speculation, If in confidential discussions the longer it takes increases risk of (potentially) leaks/fosters speculation/creates retrospective analysis of what the parties did or did not do during that ‘period’. Rightly or wrongly the bod fostered expectations regarding ‘news’ drilling/general progress & strategy. The apparent drawdown of the curtain is perplexing & with the board changes/citi advisors etc I think the market (us) deserve to be treated better.
Maybe AGM delayed as he needed time to address governance issues & get people in place together with adding support in terms of drill results. With his stated policy of going to production, Covid throwing a curve ball etc & extension to frequency of AGM timelines dec was the limit he could push it to.
I thought along similar lines and meant to look at the respective proximity of Chinese mining interested in the south east. Encapsulating alpaca & Rio together with the options on Blanca (is there a boundary issue wrt Cascabel?), but in the end I wondered what drove decision to prioritise the respective areas the way they did, was it logistical, reasons or most likely to net positive returns to suit a particular agenda. They referred to Rio as a ‘sleeping giant’ so I would have thought higher on my priority list. Is Blanca predominantly a gold target? Let’s hope it all comes to light & good in the near term.
1. Alpala - expectation was/is larger mineral deposits & a PSF.
2. Pornivir - expectation was/is perhaps larger than alpala & more cost effective recovery, 2nd tier 1.
3. Hueca - drilling commenced.
4. Blanca - drilling commenced.
5. Rio Amarillo - drilling commenced? But too early for indicative?
If solgold were using terminology like “shock & awe” & “its coming” then 1&2?were largely already built in so my “shock & awe” comes on +news on 3or4 with 4 being a v high grade gold find. Amarillo may well turn out to be the sleeping giant but it’s too early to raise my hopes on that one.
They did say quite recently opportunities have arisen as a result of further exploration to incorporate additional aspects to increase the payload. Also I’m pretty sure Jason or similar commented that sighting of infrastructure had to be planned in order not to prohibit future mining in specific areas. My words, my interpretation but plausible (possible hydro plant, tailings etc) so I’m happy to take that at face value.
If taken literally- we’ll publish a PFS, additional optimisation work continues, then we’ll publish an updated PFS.
CGP may just have evaluated the the finalised PFS wasn’t going to be ready til Q1, Solgold might just be warming us up to PFS going out (like we said Q4) but it’s not end of story.
If that’s true then he does need to open news taps with regionals (clarification updates on sites stated would be good) and or drop the PFS (as is in the knowledge that it’s still going to be tweaked
issuing of permits (is that aspect covered & in which version)
I guess he’s running through the “checklist to defend against a takeover” that citi bank have cited. The lack of news may change but as you say votes are being cast. Let’s just hope (me anyway) that he’s got the vote covered with BHP in the bag (for which he’s arranged a payback??)
If to pass a resolution requires > 50% of the shareholders agreement, does it work that to defeat a resolution requires >50%. So in the case of suboptimal voting anyone wanting to defeat the resolution has to muster greater than 50% as the resolution can still be passed by the board regardless of whether or not over 50% have said yes to the resolution?
Very clumsily put but if there is something like 39% of the shares not in public hands (& didn’t vote against the BoD re-election of NM) the BoD & DGR would carry the day on their own %(?)
Are we being a bit unfair at the moment? Did the last update say something along the lines of ‘expecting assays from 500m to depth & visualisations of 02 by end of month’? I may have also dreamt something about alpala & potentially incorporating further inputs which in turn may imply tweaks in design layout ( hence pfs could be getting a bit of further refinement- my words). As regards to other sites - yes it feels like it’s been a longtime coming but the ‘in play’ game is Alpala, porvenir, and development strategy. Saying this to cheer myself up!
With apologies for prolonging a discussion, tactics/ strategy going forward are critical, if the BoD are proposing a resolution that is takeover defensive but open to some/all stakeholders would it be reasonable to assume that major stakeholders are agreeable that passing that resolution as they themselves are not contemplating a takeover? In other words is there a gentleman’s agreement in place between the material parties & this is defensive against “outsiders”.
Morning iceberg (0806), not sure I understand how one of the resolutions to be voted on is giving BoD the right to issue upto 1bln shares. My initial take was they can issue shares up to a financial value, (together with a cap on aggregate accumulation) if I’ve got that wrong I would not be inclined to back that particular resolution.
What’s the threat level in the AGM? Is there a risk of large scale no vote regarding some or all of the motions? If there is a possibility that votes may go one way, should we be galvanised to offer our support (couldn’t see how to proxy vote) and if it’s a yes to 2nd question, what post vote scenario do we see happening? Thanks
I asked earlier about sequencing of schedules (pfs/dfs/bfs), could the “package” currently being worked up exceed the definition of a pfs and be more representative of something further down the line? And other than disappointing shareholders/markets there is no legal or moral obligation to produce the “pfs” in a given timeline. If it takes longer but is further advanced it would be a good thing.
No worries I had a look & he was talking about two concessions to the east of the current target which overlay “Bosque protector del alto nangaritza” which lies to the east of the national park. Not seen any updates for those particular areas than plans to scan the entire concession. So upshot is - no impact on this target.
This is an extract from another LSE poster unfortunately I don’t recall his name “ PORVENIR block. None of the concessions in this block overlap with indigenous territories, although the two eastern concessions (Nangaritza 1 and 2) lie entirely within a protected forest area. However, the key exploration targets lie further west in the Porvenir 1 and 2 concessions, which do not overlap with protected forest. Therefore there does not appear to be any apparent overlap conflicts for this exploration target. “
If solgold announced update on PFS production late Sep (to be issued as soon as possible) & in parallel were exploring financial funding routes/options are they obliged to follow a PFS/DFS/BFS production schedule or could they just roll out - here’s the plan?