We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Your*
Sounds like you're wife is a paid deramper on £3k a month, BBG. Add her to your filter list?
Kat, can you provide a source for the 32% to 13% claim? And do you have equivalent figures over the same time period for the USD? Genuinely interested in this.
Smickster, the fact that he's a shareholder doesn't take away from the fact that he posts mindless nonsense week in week out and, on the Telegram group, started racially abusing one member during a disagreement. He's a nasty egomaniac.
Tesla, you are clearly a bright individual, but you are currently spending too much time engaging someone that we all know to be a halfwit. Can you please be the bigger man and ignore BBG like the rest of us do. Yes there are rampers on this board who have been posting mindless nonsense for years, but the long term holders all know who they are.
It is odd behaviour to spend as much time as you do posting on the board of a share you hold no interest in.
Agree with Kat on naked short selling. That isn't right. Otherwise I agree with NMM and 1984. It's part of a healthy marketplace. Some of the Hindenburg shorts and accompanying exposés show just useless regulators can be. The Tingo Group play was a fine example of this.
Schlemiel, are you here until the end game or do you have an target price in mind? Not fussed either way just curious as I know you've dipped in and out over the years.
Interesting to see whether this is slapped down again if we tickle 9p.
Can we please, please stop the heat pump/electric vehicle/climate change posts? There's been some great info posted on here at a pivotal time for the business, but it keeps getting buried beneath useless crap.
Pretty sure that was the UT anyway.
Excellent post, thank you for sharing.
I'd suggest that the most likely outcome is the one that our BoD and advisors are aligned behind.
"Today that has been proven wrong."
Nothing of the sort has happened today. It's going to be thoroughly amusing when we sell Cascabel to someone else. I'm sure you'll still try and claim we're going to production.
"A hybrid non-dilutive packing via Jiangxi"
Can you spell out what this actually means, with numbers next to it? Jiangxi aren't in the business of providing non-dilutive funding to the tune of billions to companies they hold a small stake in.
Separately, Quady, your leaps of logic have no bounds. Never has the word 'hence' been so misused.
How we next raise funds here to ensure we have enough money to keep going will be telling.
1. If we do another royalty deal to me that says a sale is some way off and we need to buy ourselves some more time.
2. If we place the 157m shares with a strategic, either a potential buyer or a friendly investor looking for a quick return, we can assume a deal is much closer.
If Jiangxi or anyone else is negotiating a buyout with Solgold, the last thing they will want to do is put a fire under the SP through taking up the 157m shares. The temptation might be there though at this price.
Quady, do you really think that the cash-strapped government of Ecuador IS in a position to be the guarantor of a $1.5bn loan to build a mine? Is there a precedent for this type of agreement?
No one is going to agree to a JV with us where we are the majority partner. Not in a million years.
This all feels quite pie in the sky, BBG.
How can we credibly 'create' $3.2bn of non-dilutive funding? And then get a placing away at 6x current SP? This is batsh*t even by your wild standards.
Who the hell doesn't like Chinese food?
Https://solgold.com.au/solgold-plc-announces-cascabel-investment-protection-agreement/
What confuses me is the $311m figure quoted in yesterday's RNS. The original IPA (shared above) was for $430m and the various calcs done on here had put both our spend and the 'balance due' at different figures to the $311m.
If the Ecuadorian government had agreed to lend us $3.2bn I think we would have risen more than 17% yesterday. This is the figure we or whoever builds Cascabel will be spending. What the RNS yesterday was light on was detail, I.e. timeframes. But we'll get that when the actual CIPA is signed, I imagine.
Fort, that was exactly my reading of it this morning. The optics of signing an agreement worth $3.2bn with a company with around £$10m in the bank wouldn't be great. This is basically as you say, a statement of intent, but it's important because it shows Naboa is onside and willing to give us some rope.
It also signals to a risk averse prospective buyer that 1) mining in Ecuador is very much back and 2) Cascabel is THE project the government really wants to work because of its size. It was a big, public de-risking event on both of those levels.
How, if at all, we raise more cash here will be very telling.
Z, sadly not, was stuck with a client until half 6 in the end. I did tune into the webinar and was fairly non-plussed. My takeaways were to expect more delays before first ore and to not buy any more shares until we've played our hand, which inevitably will involve more equity.
Apols for off topic.