Member Info for SharketMare

Add, in case your comment RE lack of work on the PFS was because of what I'd shared on here, the document did state that some of the technical work would be done in house (which we have to hope is underway, god knows who is actually leading on that though), and then a third party would be found when required. Direct quote:

"-Engineering of the elements required to advance the study will be conducted by SolGold technical personnel; and

-Required third-party engineering will be sourced through a multiple-bid process and awarded to qualified firms

based on quality, cost, and schedule"

Reading the second part of that to me implied we haven't gone out to tender for this work. Perhaps we have in October/November (as the doc in theory only an analysis up to end of September), but then again we do reference activity that has taken place in October/November elsewhere (e.g. under Government Relations).

I'm not too sure what to make of the resignations. I don't think the two of them would have been voted against at the upcoming AGM other than by the usual suspects. I found it interesting that Mather was quoted. First we've heard from him for a while.

It's being skimmed for 10% here and there by traders IMO.

Any views on what is driving the very welcome and long overdue re-rate? The revised MRE is due to be published this side of the new year from memory, anything else? Murmurs in the market of us being taken out?

I'm not saying it's a sticking point for a buyer, it's a sticking point for Solg getting this over the line with the government.

And $150m is not exactly back of the sofa money when we're talking $2bn, it's a chunk.

NMM, I'm fairly sure at the start of the year he said that he expected both of these milestones to be completed by end of year. The exploitation agreement coming early was a welcome surprise, the time it's taking to get this revised IPA over the line, a slight concern.

Today's MD&A was the first time I've seen the Cascabel spend-to-date vs committed spelled out so clearly for shareholders. Previously I've been trying to piece together figures from the quarterly reports. Perhaps this is a subtle hint to suggest this is what the sticking point is?

Starting a new thread for those who care to discuss SOLG.

1. We are producing a 4th MRE - this was news to me, was anyone else aware of this? May account for some of the $6m exploration spend.

2. We are yet to engage a 3rd party to produce the PFS, which is due Q1 next year,

3. We are subletting our Brisbane office to conserve cash

4. We have spent $238m of the $400m committed by end '23 on exploration activity at Cascabel. This was part of the original IPA which is still being renegotiated. I have banged this drum for a while and think this is a blocker for getting the revised IPA done.

We are also producing an MRE4 to go alongside PFS3.

Add: "Other income represents rent received from the subletting of office space at 111 Eagle Street Brisbane."

Add, we are renting our office space in Brisbane, so if they are they'll be remote

We also are yet to engage a third party to complete the PFS

Unbelievable that my post was deleted. Pathetic.

Quady, Scott has repeatedly said we are not mine builders. The company over the last 12 months has dismantled much of the work that was done previously to gear us up from transitioning from explorer and developer to producer, e.g. massively reducing headcount and expertise. We are not behaving in any way like a company that plans on existing much longer than is absolutely necessary.

Q, it comes down to whether or not I believe Warren Irwin has a better handle of what's going on with Solgold or your good self, and, respectfully, I'm still siding with the big Canadian fella.

Whether or not Scott achieves a sale is a different matter, but that is what I firmly believe the company is pushing for, having mothballed all operations and told the market it has no intention of building a mine at Cascabel.

Dbw, someone should kindly introduce him to Quady. I'm sure Irwin will soon change his tune when he hears about Q's oil and gas expertise.

I knew I shouldn't have bothered.

See you when we have news to digest.

Apologies if I missed this (it's 1 month old) but have people watched this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0EyNSrj0DU

Caldwell reminds me a bit of Donald Trump minus the bigotry in the way he talks. He makes fair points but they're pretty unstructured and unscripted. It's a style of sorts I guess.

Notable lack of any mention whatsoever of Porvenir or the extensive land package we hold. Focused only on Cascabel and the ESG related efforts in and around the area.

The video aside, Caldwell has done his best to manage expectations and timelines since he took the job. He was clearly p*ssed off that the merger took longer than he'd expected to complete. But he did deliver the exploitation agreement earlier than he'd suggested. I wonder if this new 'phased approach', i.e. PFS 3 might appear sooner than expected (before the AGM) in attempt to bolster the share price and win over wavering PIs. In the September presentation it reads "Goal: Study completed by Q1". I've been working on the assumption of by the end of Q1, but given they aren't doing much else (and presumably have outsourced this work?) is it not reasonable to expect this sooner?

At the very least I hope we get news of the revised IPA, or some sort of in-depth operational update on exploration permits, tailings sites, geotechnical work - all listed as part of the de-risking Cascabel process. It seems almost beyond belief that we hear nothing in between now and being asked to vote management back in, which I will be doing as there is no other alternative at the moment.

I take some solace in the fact that long term investors like Norges Bank are holding on to their shares here. The company has long stopped behaving like one that plans on being around when Cascabel is finally mined, which is why I don't foresee any institutions looking to put their hands in their pockets even at these lowly levels.

It feels like this is being juiced for 10% here and there by traders at the moment.

"Banks are not given (allowed by their bosses) to support mere whims - they go on facts, evidence and assessment of all key factors."

Hard not to laugh at this one.

It is ridiculous... the whole 'body positive' movement. Medically overweight women modelling clothes, championed in magazines. It's total lunacy.

1984, it's here to stay, but it will be substantially reformed. The direction of travel regarding sustainability has been more not less for the last 4 decades. Younger generations - the future fund managers, institutional investors - want further progress and faster.

I don't see how or why we'd reach a tipping point whereby people would suddenly start thinking "let's destroy the planet faster".

Just on ESG.. excellent piece in the FT today on UK plans to regulate the ratings agencies. Whilst (on the whole) I am pro-ESG and the value it can bring to society (and informing investment decisions), the current situation whereby methodologies are black boxes and the agencies themselves offer consulting services to improve ratings is patently ridiculous.

We need both transparency and harmonisation in terms of how ESG is calculated (and IMO we would be better off scrapping or serious limiting the 'S' factor) and it needs to be done on a global scale, not just in the UK, or EU or wherever. This can only be done through regulation and proper definitions of what constitutes E, S and G. At the moment we are at risk of it becoming (further) politicised and devoid of any real meaning. We should all want to live in a world where companies are responsible stewards of their operating environment whilst generating capital. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Piece can be found here, for those interested: https://www.ft.com/content/61a61fc5-fedd-4c01-bb24-99c1606d446d

add & Darren, thanks both for the information and thoughts.