Member Info for schlemiel

z - ADVFN - SOLG thread. JLondon is the poster

https://uk.advfn.com/forum/search?q=jlondon&index=posts&post_poster=on

JLondon - another top poster on t'other site worth reading....

''my original mantra about doing this for shareholders''. Monetisation, monetisation, monetisation.....

MJ: You've previously said you could build it yourself - does increasing the scale mean you need some help?

NM: No, it just means we'll need to have a bit more financing for the mine development.

We'll never, ever be JV'd.

To come back to my original mantra about doing this for shareholders, I'm a shareholder, heavily invested in it, most geologists only get an opportunity to work on one project like this in their careers. We've got an opportunity to work on 12 of them. There's no geological reasons why the other 11 can't be as good as the first one. I think you'll find privately that's one of the things that interest BHP. That's an entirely speculative view, but if I was them that's what I would do. Dealing with BHP was a pleasure. It took three weeks from the first phone call.'

---

https://www.mining-journal.com/leadership/news/1351654/nick-mather-weve-got-11-more-where-that-came-from

That's my interpretation as well. Why would BHP agree to pushed around and have strict conditions being imposed upon it by a relatively tiny explorer like SOLG. It's David v Goliath stuff.

They've agreed to this imposition because they are desperate to get their hands on Alpala and the wider Cascable licence (more upside from exploration) and I believe after the last few weeks positive drilling results SOLG itself

And the reason why other majors haven't stepped up with a bid is probably they are waiting for BHP to show their hand and then see if they can match it with a higher offer. BHP is after all the daddy and not many can compete with it. I suspect other majors have an idea of what BHP may offer and they've decided a competitive bid process would be prohibitive and one they wouldn't win so have refrained from an active bid

coldcut

enuff of the rise of authoritarian bigotry and thanks for this superb post

It doesn't surprise me. The prevailing politics focused on destroying freedom of expression is designed to destroy opposition to Marxist barbarity. It ain't called Cultural Marxism for nothing.

Thatcher and Attlee would be turning in their graves to see the behaviour of Marxist Labour scum and Tory cowards

From Aug 2020

'Timing is important because, at the end of October, the first 12-year concession period will have only two years remaining and so a feasibility study needs to be completed, Macdonald noted. A major miner will want to conduct this study itself, in-house, rather than rely on SolGold to do so, he added.'

https://www.mergermarket.com/info/solgold-go-it-alone-strategy-debated-ahead-october-showdown-%E2%80%93-shareholders-bankers

erratum - 'it could be me'

thanks all. I find this aspect (PFS and DFS report compilation) of the mining sector most annoying primarily because it costs a fortune and yet delivers suspect conclusions that do not reflect the facts...it's almost as if the report itself is nobbled. Either that's deliberate (erring on the side of caution) or professionally incompetent..anyway thanks

the other thing..the royalty agreement and the cost of the Alpala DFS. There's a disconnect here and a missing $50m or so unless my maths are wonky. I thought the cash from the royalty agreement must be used specifically for the DFS and for nothing else. Well, that's patently bullsh--t or it could be, which I suspect it is...astute I ain't

'Detailed feasibility studies require a significant amount of formal engineering work, are accurate to within 10-15% and can cost between ½-1½% of the total estimated project cost' (Wikipedia) - So Alpala PFS would equate to around $40m. We raised 3x that with Franco

And according to McKinsey most BFS are inaccurate by around 60% over the long term. In other words, yes mining companies must produce them for planning and commercial purposes but that doesn't mean they are in anyway an accurate predictor of future development of the project

to what BHP will have to say publicly when they emerge out of purdah Monday, 19 October. That should be very illuminating

God, they must have been desperate to get their hands on SOLG to agree to be gagged for 24 months by Mather

Tweet : SolGold
@SolGold_plc

'Excited for next week's copper porphyry webinar! Executive Director Jason Ward speaking on behalf of SolGold'

-

Excited? Why? An announcement. This type of language in a corporate Tweet is unusual unless they have SOMETHING to be excited about.

And the use of an exclamation mark. Well, this form of punctuation is used to public indicate strong feeling , shouting or emphasis

Let's hope they do release exciting and substantial news before Ward appears (Wed, 14 Oct) and then SOLG will be able to justify their public statement of excitability

Picking apart the sentence. Such terms are used with deliberate intent to signal an event

Just my thoughts

If BHP, after 2 years of being in purdah, haven't yet got a general idea of the commercial status even before the tosh of a PFS and BFS of Alpala then they may as well pack up and go home

Newcrest at Havieron are now at decline stage. They're actually BUILDING the bloody mine ffs. Have they completed a PFS and BFS? No. It's bullsh-t

The PFS and the BFS tend to be documents rehashed and more detailed to secure capital funding. Well, SOLG have raised $150m from Franco without a PFS though I suspect Franco has seen the report before committing to such a hefty transaction. And it seems according to anecdotal evidence that they've had offers of capital funding for Alpala development

When was Alpala was discovered? It was years ago. If they haven't worked a general idea of what its development entails (cost, time, infrastructure, difficulties etc etc) then we may as well throw the towel in

into the gloom,

In SOLG's 2020 annual report they stated PFS by end of Q3 2020. I assuming this is calender year not financial year. I believe they'll drop it on the market AFTER the expiration of the BHP motionless agreement...Did u see what I did there? I'll get mi wooly coat and depart into the gloom shamed and red faced

CGP is at it again. Like they're advertising themselves for sale...Interesting they states it's a T1 discovery endorsed by Franco-Nevada when they criticised Mather for signing the Franco royalty deal at Alpala in the first instance. Which is Cornerstone? Do you now approve of the Franco royalty deal or not?

'Cornerstone Resources
@Cornerstone_CGP
We own a 21.4% direct and indirect interest in Cascabel.

Cascabel is a world class, tier 1 asset that has been endorsed by BHP, Newcrest and Franco-Nevada.

Read more: http://cornerstoneresources.com/i/pdf/Presentations_0920_CRICorporate.pdf

https://twitter.com/Cornerstone_CGP/status/1314637611760267264

newtofo - Will Origin formally declare this as a 'commercial discovery' if flow rates justify Origin's commercial expectations or do companies leave this designation to the whims of the equity market? tks

'1w ago'

'Fathom Geophysics is following SolGold Plc's recent drillcore logging news at their Porvenir project with great interest: Visible chalcopyrite seen from 15.9m to the current depth (as at announcement time) of 525.3m, with the chalco-to-pyrite ratio increasing downhole. This is a promising-sounding follow up to their comprehensive announcement back on 7th May 2019. We're enjoying Figure 3 of yesterday's announcement, which includes the drillhole trace along with the dashed outline of the 90th percentile threshold obtained from incorporating soil sampling data into 3D geochemical footprint modeling. Very much looking forward to future announcements about what assays and planned additional drillholes reveal.'

https://www.linkedin.com/company/fathom-geophysics

-

I think Fathom is working with SOLG at Porvenir

SOLG : ''Excited for next week's copper porphyry webinar! Executive Director Jason Ward speaking on behalf of SolGold''.

Do we have the assays? I've got this feeling that Mather's idea of date and time is different from ours, if you know what I mean