Member Info for SharketMare

My 2 cents -

Could it be that NCM have given Shaun assurances that: 1) they are now acting in good faith and are no longer interested in playing games to seize more of HAV for peanuts 2) they are not going to launch a hostile takeover for the company (at say 15-20p) that he would most likely have to put to shareholders? In return, they've asked that we adhere to their timelines and show a little patience. As mentioned the other day, not releasing our own updated MRE saves cost on our side, and as bamps pointed out, it would be out of date not long after it had been published.

I think there are indications of a better working relationship, of a clear desire to drill the heck out of HAV before releasing an updated MRE and FS in quick succession (a win-win for both sides really), with everyone now working towards a common goal - building a Tier 1 mine at Havieron.

Admittedly I came to invest in this share much later than most of you, and selfishly I don't have an issue with the weakness of the last couple of days as it presents opportunities to add and average down further. But I can sympathise with the long term holders who have been through the mill and back over the last few years.

All I can say is that there are very, very few shares out there (at least on my watchlist) with a clear, fully funded route to production in less than 18 months time. This is an absolute gem and an incredible opportunity to buy stock at a lower price than the instis who supported us a few months ago.

P.S. Dip666 - I fully agree with your M&A/acquisition point. To be honest, my gut feeling after seeing Shaun in London (not last time, but the time before) was that if the stock re-rated (say by ~50% from the Wyloo entry price) on the NCM revised MRE (now pushed back) he *might* look to take a slice of a good quality revenue generating project to bolster our cash position and help with any potential overspend for our share of HAV. I think that option is now firmly off the table and we will have to rely on the drill bit if we want to see any ex-HAV value added here, which as SD will know well, is far less reliable.

It's been a sad couple of days but the future is still very bright here!

That'll be*

That'll the the closest the company comes to a production report - the number of Tilapia we've managed to farm in 2022.

Super informative as usual bamps, thank you.

Timber - agree with that reading of the tea leaves. You get the sense that Shuan is 'moderately' frustrated with the fact that it's being pushed back as he has the interests of his shareholders to look out for, but recognizes that at this point NCM appear to be acting in good faith (and arguably in the interests of both their and our shareholders over the mid-long term). I think that in the spirit of goodwill and resetting of relations with Biswas gone, he might hold off from releasing our own updated resource in this instance.

It's both good business in the sense that it saves cost on our side if we don't have to produce our own, and displays a willingness to trust with NCM's new management that, as you point out, wasn't quite there before.

DM, thanks for the clarification.

Stukey - are you referring to the special resolutions which failed to pass at the last AGM? You are right if that's the case.

Bancal - by the end of this year the author will likely be out of a job - ChatGPT can churn out nonsense like that for free in a fraction of the time.

The share price action (or lack of it) is to be expected at this point. Until NCM or GGP release a revised MRE, and until we are given clarity on when the FS will be released (which in turn impacts the DTM), we will continue to trade within the range we've become accustomed to over the last few months.

I think they are setting the scene for further delays to the release of the FS personally due to:
1) Hav getting bigger and bigger and them wanting to continue drilling to ensure they optimize the approach for the first few years of mining
2) Major miners plan for the long term and don't tend to rush these things (yes am aware of the Telfer situation, but what is a few more months in the grand scheme of things)

Mid-long term this is a positive for GGP shareholders as ultimately it should mean a higher quality FS and a rudimentary DTM. My reading of the NCM exploration update was very positive. I don't think there's any doubt that they're going mining, they'll just want to ensure they're doing it in the best way possible.

The other issue with Quibbles' theory was that he was unable to explain away the Nick Mather comments at Noosa last year, or the comments Mather made in one of the DGR RNS (I think it was on the Osisko funding). Unless Mather has been telling bare-faced porkies, he is in alignment with the fast and smart strategy as set out by Sangha and co to monetize the asset.

If he performs a volte-face and is in fact set on seeing this through to first ore, any final ounce of credibility SOLG had will be gone and I'll be selling up at a loss.

I agree with you though Sean that he shouldn't have been banned from this BB.

FlyingHigher, I think most of us would be much happier if we were no longer holders of this share by the end of the year, and the SOLG story was over. But thank you for your well wishes.

Boring? I can only assume you haven't been following this stock closely for the last 12-18 months, or your portfolio is full of companies that have been through the mill more than this share has. Over the above timeframe we have:

- Had 2 new CEOs start
- Had a CFO start and leave after 8 weeks
- Had a failed fundraising
- Seen our coffers nearly run dry due to shocking mismanagement
- Announced intention to merge with a previously hostile partner and investor on our register (CGP)
- Lost our Finance Director due to a "change in strategy"
- Launched a strategic review of the company
- Brought on a strategic investor and potential buyer
- Delayed the publication of any further studies on our core asset

Whilst many of the above have been disappointing developments, to suggest that things have been boring here is pretty far wide of the mark. I wish things had been more boring and the business had done what it set out to investors in a timely and effective way.

Agreed, and would be a total waste of time as any sane investor would sell into the rise as it would become apparent that management had lost its marbles. Honestly red, you can't seriously be advocating that as a sensible strategy?

Blimey 1981, I've really got under your skin haven't I? Having a read through the name-calling and total misrepresentation of my original point.

I am not saying the board are actively suppressing the share price. I am saying that - possibly - in the short term they are not concerned about a re-rate here. Why? If Caldwell and Sangha know that upon completion of the merger there is a very, very strong likelihood that the Chinese will table an offer for either Cascabel or the company at 45p, the share price in between now and then is utterly irrelevant.

In fact, the two arguably have a vested interest in the share price remaining at these levels because they can claim to have delivered a huge premium for shareholders when the bid arrives. I would point to the absence of any RNS on the good progress made with the merger as an example of the company not maximising its opportunities to deliver shareholder value in the short term here. This had many of us totally baffled as it was a big and important milestone for the company.

If they strongly believe a bid at 45p is coming shortly, are happy with that price and know that they or another party aren't going to pay any more, they simply aren't going to bother trying to coax the price upwards are you? You might argue that in doing so you have a greater opportunity of achieving a higher bid, but these guys will have a pretty good idea of what potential suitors are and aren't willing to pay. And I repeat, the story Caldwell and Sangha are able to tell upon delivering a 300% premium makes for much better reading for their own careers and reputations. This isn't "actively suppressing" the share price, which I've never claimed, rather it's not doing all in their power to boost it in the short term. There's an important nuance here that hopefully an intellectual heavyweight such as yourself can understand.

Finally, you wrote "He suggested that they were keeping it down, by failing to release news about regionals" - where did I say this? Looks a total fabrication to me and would be illegal.

Thanks Bozi for making some of these points. 1981, happy to discuss all things SOLG with you on here, but I'd ask you to refrain from misrepresenting and twisting what I post when doing so. Though I'm sure you'll just go back to obsessing ovwr and abusing the posters on here you've got a hard on for.

1981, not even going to bother writing out a proper response. You seem rather rattled and have misunderstood my post. Enjoy the weekend. I'll sign off with a smile like your former alias on here, you sad act :)

If the company want to get the share price moving in the right direction, they could augment the merger completion RNS later this month with a statement along the lines of the one ALL released last year:

"In recent months, Atlantic Lithium has received unsolicited enquiries from multiple parties interested in acquiring all or part of the Company and/or its assets. Canaccord Genuity Limited will assist in evaluating the merit of these enquiries."

The above would sit nicely under the heading of "Strategic Review Update" for SOLG and wake up the market to what is about to happen here.

Conversely, it might not be in the new BoD's interests to put a rocket under the share price if they are confident of only securing 45-50p. Much better story for Sangha and Caldwell to tell if they can negotiate a ~300% premium from when they essentially took over the running of the company, than a 50% one.

I think you're right actually based upon the wording of the RNS. My bad.

I can see why there is some confusion here, but I still think it's 70% of the 85% owned by SOLG. This article from the time supports that reading:

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/167144/solgold-tells-bhp-billiton-to-buzz-off-167144.html

"but it is also proposing to sweeten the pot further by spending US$275mln to acquire 70% of SolGold’s 85% interest in Exploraciones Novomining (ENSA)".

Potato/potato - we said no regardless and they're either going to have to stump up cash to buy the lot or miss out altogether.

NitPicker, not to nitpick, but you wrote: "Actually you're wrong Quady (as usual), it was for 70% of ENSA not 70% of Solgold's 85% of ENSA"

The RNS you reference states: " An offer by BHP to earn-in to the Cascabel Project, by spending US$275 million to acquire 70% of ENSA out of SolGold's 85% interest in Exploraciones Novomining S.A (ENSA) which company currently holds the Cascabel project tenements."

So it was for 70% of the 85% of ENSA owned by SOLG.

You'll get "intellectual honesty" (what does this even mean?) when you stop positing intellectually bankrupt questions. With every single investment people are taking a view on the future prospects of a company and the resulting share price should they deliver on what they have set out to the market. Nobody "knows" how much profit Tesco is going to make in 2023 - they look at past performance, the macroeconomic climate, consumer trends, inflation, overheads, pricing power, and forecasting and make a judgement.

Similarly, nobody "knows" SOLG will be sold. They are looking at the company RNSs, the recent PR campaign, the recent addition of strategic investors to the share register, speaking directly to the company or those associated with it, and deducing (rightly or wrongly) that a sale is the most probable outcome.

Your point boils down to semantics and people are expressing their opinion in definitive terms - dull and moot points. Stop masquerading as some intellectual heavyweight - no one's buying it.