Member Info for SavShare7

Earthling if you take the reported mineralisation in MRE2 just in the indicated category it is $80ish billion of metal as is....

Addicknt the standstill for both Solgold and Cornerstone that was part of the BHP SSA becomes null and void if someone else bids for the companies and a competitive bid develops.

Thank you buddy :)

Are you attending the presentation today at PDAC? Apologies if I got you mixed up with someone else but think you saw NM present at Ecuador Day on Sunday and am hoping you may be hitting it up again?

Would appreciate any updated info or subtle differences in what is presented, especially regarding the scout drilling permits which Aurania Resources have just received through.

Cheers in advance - hi to the LTH, am still about, just reading mainly but trying to keep away from some of the noise... GLA and DYOR

BM email Solgold company secretary, investor relations etc and ask them if it worrying you. There is spend information against each subsidiary in the year end accounts and information on activity and stage of exploration. Do your own research and find the information that is published rather than trying to come on here and sling uninformed rubbish at management. Have you been on Sedar and found the huge amount of legal agreements, contracts, management discussion and analysis etc that is on there? Have you read through the prospectus for listing on the TSX? It is available on the company website? Focus on the value being created and progress that has been made. The Annual Report published last year has great summary information on all of that. There is so much information in the public domain, you just have to be bothered to read it and put some effort in yourself. If you don't have the inclination or understanding to read, digest and analyse the information then I would suggest that investing is not for you. Best of luck with your reading. GLA

FR01 agree with most of what you say but how can you know that a TR-1 is on its way?

BNc I'm getting on buddy! "Sav-time" is normally a month after the fact so a mere couple of weeks is #winning. Yes all good mate, hope all is well with you.

Not2sure I think that's total cost to feasibility, so CGP's share would be 15% of that. I.e. $30m not $200m. They could also sell down their stake in Solgold to cover the debt carry if needed whilst retaining the ENSA stake. What they can't do is pre-sell any NSR or encumber the 15% ENSA holding with any other debt agreements to cover their costs which was very cleverly included in the original earn in agreement with Solgold.

Agreed JS, grow value for non-CGP staked elements of the business to sweeten the deal!

https://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2019/02/good-news-for-mining-from-ecuador-from.html?m=1 According to the above it is official - any Spanish speakers able to do some googling on Ecuadorian Governmental sites ? Timing of Solgold offer to CGP in relation to the above is very...hmmm... Coincidental? :) GLA and DYOR

Interesting perspectives from a variety of posters on here this morning.

0.55 of a Solgold share per CGP shares is an ever moving position.... What happens if there is a significant announcement prior to the formal offer being made that could include:
- PEA
- Increased shareholding of any of the major shareholders
- Regional drilling permits approved / some new shiny core
- Conditional funding package updates
- Increased resource size or cores from Alpala or other significant core results from Trivinio..

If the Solgold share price increases at a higher rate as a result of any of the above (especially because of value added activity that sits outside of ENSA) than CGP then the 0.55 per CGP share is more attractive...

It is key to note that this is Solgold giving CGP shareholders NOTICE that they intend to bid...time to get a lot of the pettiness out of the way, consider the offer, consider the upside etc... as well as to notify the rest of the market....

This seems to be like Solgold has exhausted dialogue with the CGP board and wants to present an open and transparent offer (whether you believe the value is right or not is not the key aim) to ALL CGP SHAREHOLDERS not just to those who are either on the board or part of the small Major shareholders group...

Ironically it is a similar scenario that SEMAFO did when bidding for Orbis Gold (where NM was on the Board of Directors) - this is an exert from the NR at the time:

"SEMAFO has attempted to engage with Orbis in a straightforward and business-like manner. Meetings were held in Brisbane during the period of September 25-27, 2014, which were followed by various communications, including several written proposals. Despite SEMAFO’s best efforts, Orbis has so far responded in a manner that has made SEMAFO consider it appropriate to issue this press release."

Looks like NM has learnt from that and decided to follow a similar route...

The other key point to note is the point about the Warrant holders, there are 26,666,667 warrants exercisable at 35 cents that expire on the 7th April 2019... Both Solgold RNS specifically mention Warrant holders, not just shareholders...

Don't forget the other thing that this does, as has been previously mentioned on here, is draw attention to this dynamic and potentially looks to force the hand of a third party (i.e. not NCM or BHP) to make a move which will be good for both CGP and Solgold shareholders and the current valuation of both companies....

Just my 2 pence...

P.s. great to get clarity on the points CGP made relating to Blanca and ENSA.... Solgold have clearly taken their time, consulted Legal advice and come back clearly stating the position to reassure all shareholders involved...

GLA and do your own due diligence and research

Cheers Tipsa, I only wanted to be absolutely positive as you did use quotation marks and didn't want anyone on the board to get the wrong end of the stick. In terms of the agreements between CGP and Solgold, the term sheet dated 24th February 2014. This term sheet (files on SEDAR on July 13th 2017) updates the commercial arrangements referred to within the original Earn-in agreement signed in 2012. A key element of this term sheet within the definitions section on page 5 states (under the definition of tenement which outlines Cascabel). "Tenement area means the land area the subject of the tenement as it exists at of the date of this agreement." Not 100% positive but pretty sure Carnegie Ridge (one of Solgold 100% owned subsidiaries) didn't hold either the Blanca or Nieves tenements at that time. SO, even if there is something about the 5km area of interest or whatever you called it in your previous post, (which I hasten to add is NOT WRITTEN in ANY of the copies of agreements that I have read on SEDAR), this seems to suggest that this document succeeds any claim as it only relates to the tenement area at the date of signing.... Just how I read it, but others may have their own opinions? The more eyes reading those agreements the better and I like to hear others perspectives... DYOR and GLA

Hi Tipsa, did you write that first paragraph as an example of what MAY be in an agreement or did you copy and paste it from an agreement that you've found? Just want to be clear :) I have a feeling I may do some trawling through all the original agreements held on SEDAR tomorrow, fun fun fun! GLA and DYOR

Spot on unic :)

Hi GV, I've been musing on this aswell and the October presentation there's the diagram of Cascabel with the surrounding tenement license holders (page 21 - link below) and there seems to be a sliver of a tenement held by Codelco that clearly separates Cascabel from Nieves (the right hand tenement in brown above Cascabel) and Blanca (the tenement in brown to the right of Nieves).... So, using CGP's logic do they hold some of Codelco's tenement too...? It'll all come out in the wash :) http://www.solgold.com.au/s/SOLG-Corporate-Presentation-MM-Toronto-2018.pdf

Hi Strider4, it is 15% direct interest in ENSA and a c9% interest in Solgold (indirect interest into ENSA). I would say neither is a controlling interest. I think one of the reasons that (potentially) the major shareholders in CGP are resisting the move into Solgold is because they go from being in control (via major shareholding) of a company with a minority interest, to just a minority shareholder of a company with complete interest/control of ENSA (i.e. they have little to no significant influence or control over the Solgold Board). Given major CGP shareholders like Irwin have openly said he can't work with Nick Mather (see twitter), I think this is unpalatable to them...

All observations and thoughts. DYOR, GLA

Strider4 it was part of the original set of agreements between SOLG and CGP for the earn-in of 85% of ENSA. That is why CGP were trying to spin out the non-ENSA 15% and Solgold shares into a spin-co. They knew that they couldn't sell the stake, and that they needed to get the company taken over lock stock to realise value. It's all there on Sedar.

Lostagain if BHP was in cahoots with Irwin and CGP then I don't think they would have signed a standstill agreement with regards to buying Cornerstone.....

https://twitter.com/SolGold_plc/status/1091275048294514688?s=19

Good analysis on the proposed offer by Solgold. You need to subscribe but it's free: http://www.redcloudks.com/rcks/solg-solgold-targets-100-interest-in-cascabel