We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Sounds like a takeaway rather than a takeover. Nice oriental tie up in the south & wrap alpala in some green & gold ribbons for Christmas?
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”.
Iceberg, Quady & ToS - thank you gives me something to think about rather than knee jerk reaction. Agreed good defensive ploy but could the majors not vote it down (rhetorical question)
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?
If we are to take the NM view
No JV, going to production, not part of some big conglomerate, multiple SH exit points, minimal dilution etc.
Then is
Minimal Dilution not the only element undefined & subjective?
JV but one of several options & one that can be pruned back in terms of legal definition?
Assuming no major can or is willing to land a knockout blow & NM won’t offload alpala just because he can.
What are his options going forward that still satisfy all the elements of legal, logistical, financial, Governance, timescales & market credibility?
It feels like several deals have got to be cut & packaged that allows NM to deliver to his basic principles & that the current SP is just one of a series of escalator steps that will be forthcoming.
The markets will react when the strategy becomes clearer.
I thought it might be CGP offloading some slowly but can’t figure out why the stock wouldn’t be picked up, I’ve added & I’m sure many others thought same at under 40 given where we are in the schedule.
If you had a significant holding, could sell at a positive margin but needed revenue and time would you not be drip selling?
Hydro Thanks for the call, done my bit. Now I’m back to bed, don’t call again!
Is talking to yourself the first sign of madness?
1. High risk if major investors express any reservations about the approach. It could be a car crash for you and we can move to mop up.
2. Pragmatic & keeps the ball rolling but others need to be onside for final delivery.
3. Fair game but we (majors) like the look of the whole pie. Why pounce now when there’s more to play for?
4. I’d really like to work with the bigger picture, let’s carry on quietly as it unfolds.
Feels like four player chess - solgold, bhp, newcrest, cgp. CGP in weak position so look to move in tandem with other player but inconsequential overall.
NM has a great hand (change of analogies) I don’t think he’s going to over play it ...JMO
Thanks I’m trying to rationalise in my own head how long the silence might be on the strategic delivery vehicle(s) becoming in the public domain.
If he’s planning on doing 1, would that not require BHP to carry on in good faith & not say anything detrimental to the approach (publicly passive) but we can say so now/by next week.
If he’s doing 2 let’s say so now because it helps on a lot of fronts and we will outline that in the next 2weeks.
If it’s 3 or 4 we need to wait longer I think.
1. Would you be looking to build on the momentum of recent results & the end of the standstill by declaring yes we’re in advanced talks regarding financing alpaca, if fact we are about to sign a heads of agreement with x (given that you’ve stated you are going to be a miner & not part of some big conglomerate) alpaca potential is well understood so we can move forward with the planning, design & construction.
Or
2. Would you be consulting with your major stakeholders on a comprehensive delivery package for alpaca/ Cascabel.
Or
3. Would you say to your major investors, I’m doing (1) offer me something better and I’ll consider it.
Or
4. Would you carry on with the regional updates knowing that you can continue to nurse alpala for a period, goading the majors to show their hand.
Probably trust then direction of travel. They (CGP) had some legitimate grievances on the earlier rejection but nothing that couldn’t have been sorted over a beer or two. Different objectives, different outcomes.
I hope BHP will stay loyal to Solgold and they will pursue several developments including alpala. That they present a solid plan for the Ecuadorean gov (and us) soon.
On no account should the offer be improved.
I think CGP will have to (be made to) sweat it out as no-one should make a move in that respect til the can is further down the road. Keeps everyone sweet (except CGP).
Assuming NM had a plan A with the offer & CGP had a plan A with the rejection, NMs plan B is to get on with it as it stands, CGPs plan B remains the same “we have a unique position that enables”. Therefore are the current arrangements that onerous on a 3rd party who may take an interest in CGP for that purpose? - No funding required til BFS, fund us then at your percentage of costs incurred (LIBOR +2%) OR surrender 90% of ENSA dividends until such time as you’ve repaid me.