Member Info for SharketMare

DBW, the Andrew Taunton interview in BN Americas implied that Porvenir & Helipuertos are being shopped to a potential partner for a JV (at least that was my understanding of it).

"Taunton: There are a number of companies in talks with us right now. We’ve presented a series of concessions to see if any of these companies are interested in linking up with us in developing the other areas that we have.
We have selected two. One is Porvenir, which is far to the south, in Zamora Chinchipe, and the other is Helipuertos, very close to Solaris, in Morona Santiago."

I was then confused by him saying this about Hueca and Blanca:

"BNamericas: What happened to La Hueca and Blanca, where you started drilling?
Taunton: La Hueca is part of the third-party interest group. We have also offered Blanca to the same group."

Is 'the third-party interest group' the same group interested in Porvenir & Helipuertos?

Does anyone have a better grasp of what exactly is being said here? Again, frustrated that we are having to sleuth our way though online articles to learn about this (important) news.

Full article in English here for those who missed it:
https://www.bnamericas.com/en/interviews/solgold-ecuador-can-be-one-of-the-new-major-copper-producers

addicknt, pure speculation, but my hunch is the last of the three. New CFO on board.. shift in strategy.. maybe he just thought he'd done as much as he could. Alternatively, a lot of the work he's done over the last 2 years or so might no longer be relevant due to a change of strategy.. which would might also irk someone to the point of throwing in the towel.

"With the Pre-Feasibility Study targeted for completion in Q3 2022" - unfortunately I think this means we will be looking at the back end of Q3 for this news. I am keen to know whether the full 37,000m drilling programme will be included in the PFS. If so, would not be surprised to see this slip into Q4 as assays seem to be taking a while.

On the plus side, the market might have bottomed out by then.

Thanks for sharing these articles. I find it a bit odd that we're finding out new things about the company and its operations in BN Americas, but better than not knowing at all I guess.

After initial signs that Daryl would be a lot more open and communicative, does feel like we're back to the SOLG of the last 24 months, where we haven't really got a clue what is going on.

Looking forward to the day when Mike Henry comes out and says that BHP wants to pay full price for assets, swiftly followed by the news that he's been sacked by the board.

Jezzoo, that's what most of us have been saying for years. It's a line the company HAS to trot out. One or two have chosen to take it at face value and tried to ridicule and belittle those who suggested otherwise.

At least now we have one of our biggest shareholders and former CEO saying quite clearly on the record that the plan is for SOLG to be taken over by a major.

"So we start with ideas and raw targets, we're grass roots explorers, and we set these up in companies which get financed, get listed. Some of them are merged quicker than others. But the basic idea and the model that we've been following successfully for some years, is to create companies around very, very large resource projects, and then ultimately majors seem to take them over. That's certainly the plan in respect of SolGold."

Black and white.

Credit where it's due, you called this one bang on.

Very happy to see this legacy issue out of the way, allowing SD to build the company properly from here on in. Remember the recent Sprott note - trust in the management team to deliver.

The decline in SP over the last few months has predominantly been on very low daily volumes. Take a look at volume between Jan-April and from April-present day - it's around 50% of what it used to be.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/ALL/atlantic-lithium-limited/company-page

To me this suggests it's very, very unlikely that Piedmont are offloading shares. Not to mention all the salient points made my Bozi below.

Quady, you don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid. I've asked several questions below and you are unable to answer any of them. As happens normally when you're called out and shown to be wrong, you attempt to move the conversation on to matters unrelated (because you're out of your depth).

There are three main frameworks that corporates such as BHP really care about. These are MSCI, Sustainalytics and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). They care about these three the most, because these are the three that investors and governments pay most attention to. One of the big problems that the sustainability industry faces (and the topic of ESG more broadly) is around consensus on which framework to use to measure companies' ESG performance.

It's quite simple to look at BHP's performance around two of these frameworks. Taking Sustainalytics first, of all of the diversified metals companies they have analysed across the world BHP ranks at 15th out of 166. If you look at their direct competitors - Anglo, Vale, Rio and Glencore, they rank 2nd, only pipped by Anglo American.

https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-rating/bhp-group-ltd/1008134900

Moving on to MSCI, BHP are ranked in the upper average band in the mining and metals index (61 companies analysed in total), 2% have AAA ratings, 8% have AA ratings and 16% (including BHP) have a rating of A. It's also worth noting - given the points you've been making, that BHP are considered ESG industry leaders around water stress.

https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/bhp-group-limited/IID000000002158721

You have stated and are standing my the statement that BHP would have to 'change 'ts ESG' in order to advance Alpala. If you can show where the Ecuadorian government has stated this, or shed some light on what framework they are using, I'm happy to retract what I've said on here.

But we both know you can't and won't, because you're talking out of your a*se.

So just to be clear - no evidence to suggest that BHP has to 'change its ESG' in order to advance Alpala?

You're making things up matey.

"BHP has to change it's ESG in order to advance Alpala.
That means it's required to change it's ESG in all it's other Mines, otherwise our ESG cannot be used for licenses granted and those we wish to obtain."

Hi Quady, can you let me know what the above means? When you say change its ESG, which aspect of ESG are you referring to? Which framework and ratings agencies must they improve their scores with?

Where is the evidence that it has to change its ESG in order to advance Alpala? I don't think this has ever been stated by BHP, SOLG or the Ecuadorian government, but happy to be shown otherwise.

Quady, what is complete fantasy is you thinking that dilution will be minimal if we go to production solo. You (as ever) take news from the company that supports your own viewpoint as gospel, and come up with a myriad of excuses to let the company off the hook when they say something and then fail to deliver it, or do something totally different.

You are the master of cherry-picking, if nothing else.

There are many, many good reasons to not take what the company says at face value. Most people with half a brain and the ability to think critically can see this. For example, stating that you intend to take an asset into production even if that isn't your actual aim is a good tactic for squeezing the highest price out of any potential buyer. Likewise, in this instance, claiming that dilution will be minimal is beneficial because to say anything but that would have existing (and prospective) investors running for the hills.

How can you not grasp these very, very basic concepts?

Morning copperpot, hope you're well.

I agree that an imminent bid does not look likely at present. There are a few things going in our favour (somewhat) if you want or believe a bid is in the offing.

1. Tumbling copper price - value of the assets in the ground has declined over the last few weeks. Benefits majors looking to acquire projects.
2. Majors are cash rich.
3. Funding for juniors/explorers increasingly difficult to access in this macro economic climate. They will be forced to raise at lower price.
4. Explorers are currently unloved by the market and are looking cheap and vulnerable to lowball offers.

If you're a major, conditions to snap up assets at bargain prices don't get much better.

Today's senior appointments demonstrate that the company is setting itself up for the long term. For me, the question is whether that is long term for the rest of the portfolio, i.e. Porvenir and the other tenements. Or, whether this new team plans to build Alpala.

The sole hope I have for this share, this year, is that we agree a JV with BHP and/or NCM that drives a re-rate of this stock to a suitable exit point. I'd be happy with 45p and I'm sure many others would too.

Good luck to all those trading this over the next few months. I will be doing the same!

Hi swest. I emailed the company about the bids a few weeks ago. They will only communicate on the "unsolicited enquiries" received should they decide to proceed with any of them. Given that we've heard nothing and that the company is pushing ahead with listing on the ASX, I am working on the assumption that we have decided not to pursue these further.

To quickly caveat the below - I meant low risk relative to other AIM mining investments.

Hi Ortherncopper, I thought the same regarding the risk rating. One of the reasons I parked 50% of my ISA allocation in here was the fact that I deemed it to be low risk. Based in AUS and heavily de-risked through NCM's involvement. The risk rating doesn't really tally up with their opening para "Free ride as Newcrest builds Australia's newest Au-Cu mine".

Regardless, a conservative 70% upside from here is fine by me, with the drilling campaign to hopefully unlock further value for shareholders.

Atb
SM

"Problem with that is everyone knows what their shares are worth and no one will sell out cheap."

Yeah, let's see how long this lasts when Nick is kicked off the BoD in December and his holding is set to be diluted to oblivion to fund the building of Alpala.

Anyone able to outline why we're dropping 15% from here to 25p, or are we just pulling numbers of a hat?

We are back to being massively undervalued based upon the fundamentals of the mine that we will build in Ghana. At this price we are also vulnerable to a lowball takeover that would still be multiples of the current SP.

We have to brace ourselves for the possibility of the market shrugging its shoulders in response to the PFS, even when it does confirm this to be the world class asset long term investors know it to be. Those of us who have been here a while will remember when we produced the first MRE at Ewoyaa and the share price did sweet FA. That's because AIM exploration companies were out of favour - just as they are now, with a few exceptions.

Mining stocks and commodities are not performing well at the moment, and we are taking more of a pasting than most. But the green agenda is now so embedded in business and society that even during the inevitable global recession, demand for lithium will still be high and outstrip supply.

Seeing this fall back below 30p this morning has been tough and I'm sure many of us are thinking why on earth didn't we sell up at 66.6p. Ultimately, whilst the macro economic outlook has changed, the fundamentals of this business have not. Big money was pouring into ALL in the 60p range. We will be back there and higher in due time.

ATB to the LTHs
SM

Adding here today, expecting a strong trading update when it comes.