Member Info for SharketMare

Couldn't agree more ToS. For almost this entire year it has been very unclear what the plan is. On September 7th we were told:

"SolGold continues to pursue its strategy as an integrated explorer and developer and the Company maintains its plan of applying its exploration blueprint of systematic evaluation of its exploration assets across Ecuador. This process will likely involve further consolidation of our project portfolio as a result of SolGold's ongoing exploration and evaluation activities. Drilling is currently underway at the Cascabel, Porvenir, Sharug and Rio Amarillo projects, and soon to commence at the Cisne Loja project. Field exploration activities continue to focus on Helipuerto, Cisne-Victoria and Chical. The Company also continues to seek strategic partners to advance certain projects with discussions underway with several interested parties."

We were also told on June 2nd (Cornerstone & SOLG friends again RNS):

"Concurrently with advancing the Cascabel Project, the Parties will explore and evaluate a range of strategic and financing options focused on maximizing value for their respective shareholders with respect to the Cascabel Project."

My questions are as follows:

1. Over the last 6 months, what progress has been made in maximising value for shareholders with regards to Cascabel?
2. What strategic and financing options has the company explored, and are any of them still in play?
3. Which projects have attracted interest from strategic partners, and are will still in talks with any of them?

Compared to say my investment in KAV, where communication is regular and the strategy is very apparent, there has been so much confusion for us all over the last 12 months, leading to rampant speculation and disagreement. We simply cannot continue to try and develop all of these projects on our own for much longer. It would be great if the company stated openly that it was looking for JV partners on 1 or 2 of the licenses - let the market know we are very much open for business and not trying to go it alone.

I've said it many times before but where are the multiple exit points we were promised by Saint Nick!

caddy - same story here. My average is around 4.5p so I'm considerably underwater and cannot bring myself to buy more just yet. If we drift further down to 2p I might buy a big chunk to bring my average down considerably and then look to trade out on a daily spike.

The lack of communication from the company about the nonsense going on in the background & separately the drilling updates has been unforgivable. We're left trying to piece together what is going on from Zambian newspapers and speculation on here and on Twitter. This is exactly the type of company I try to avoid!

Some will argue momentum has gone? Not sure there is much of a debate to be had - the SP is in the doldrums and the communication from the company over the last few months has been appalling. From March 17th onwards this has been in terminal decline - I'm looking for the company to pull its finger out so the market knows when the rot is set to stop.

"Not that great compared to Alpala" - no sh*t Sherlock. It was never going to be.

Orthern, I respectfully disagree. If Daryl is spending this week faffing about, less than 2 weeks out from an AGM that some think is the most pivotal in the company's short history, then we are in real trouble. Let's be very clear on the state of play here - the company is at loggerheads with its largest and seemingly hostile shareholder, there is disagreement at board level about the best way forward, and the share price is in the doldrums. There is a raft of expected news and a strategic decision to be made on the Alpala PFS (which judging by the hints in this morning's RNS may have been made already).

Generic meet and greets I think not. We need him to step up and hit the ground running.

Guys, the other night Quady called President Biden's Chief Medical Adviser and world renowned scientist a "conspiracy theorist". Take it as a compliment, you're in good company.

The guy is a psuedo-intellectual. He reads things he thinks are clever and spouts them back out without even a moment of critical thought. It's why he believes everything the company says verbatim.

Zoros, how can you write..

"Alas, due to his shareholding in Solg, the rest have been unable to fully expunge the man. So he continues to manipulate from a distance. BHP don't like it."

..when we have had an official RNS from the company claiming that it is in fact BHP who are trying to manipulate SOLG from a distance?

What is this alleged 'manipulation' by Mather? Given he has a massive holding here, do you think he is is trying to drive the share price lower?

Why are you siding with BHP who care only about getting their hands on all of our assets as cheaply as possible and not one bit about the share price of SOLG?

Why has Warren Irwin not commented on this being the case, given the anomisity he previously held for Nick?

Quady, it is highly probable that Covid was accidentally leaked from the Chinese lab in Wuhan where they were doing research on coronaviruses that could be transmitted to human. This is broadly accepted now across the scientific community as the most probably source of the virus.

If you believe that the epicentre of a coronavirus pandemic just so happened to be in one of I think 3 or 4 cities where they are doing such research, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Have a read of this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

Addicknt, a final point and q before I switch off. You mentioned that any company with 5% can propose a special resolution. What if it was BHP who asked for the special on dilution to be include, and the company decided to honour the request so as to give other shareholders a very clear indication (when the votes come in) as to what will happen when they get their way?

Moreover, if BHP are confident of removing some of the Old Guard up for reelection, to get friendlier replacements on board instead, why not get the dilution process started at the same time?

Have just seen Bozi's much more contrite post on this - it is very, very clear that BHP are lobbying shareholders and current members of the BoD to vote out members of the BoD who are preventing them from taking control of the company or developing the company in a way they find amenable.

Hi RedKnight.

1. BHP might not be buying shares on the open market in fear of driving the price up higher than they might intend to pay for the whole company
2. You wrote:

Furthermore Twigger couldn't have been more clear when he said "Ultimately, if a party wants control or to significantly influence the development of your Company, the party should put forward an offer that results in all Shareholders benefitting from a premium that reflects the value of achieving control or heightened influence."

Surely that is INVITING a bid...?"

Yes it is inviting a bid for sure. He is calling their bluff because he knows a bid will put a rocket under the SP and start an auction process which BHP are clearly at great pain to avoid (see Noront as to why and their desire not to pay premiums) What he is also very clearly implying is that BHP either want to "control or significantly influence the development of the company" (through what can only be described as nefarious means).

Now, we have to ask ourselves, do we think BHP care in the slightest for the interests of private investors? Or are BHP more interested in getting their hands on Alpala in the cheapest way possible? This is why I find it unfathomable that you and others on here can support their calls to have Nick Mather be put up for reelection - you are siding with the guys who care not one bit about the share price, they only care about the assets and getting their hands on them.

They are trying to stack the deck in their favour by getting rid of the Board members that are preventing them from stealing Alpala, at which point I imagine we'll see BHP stick their own man on the board and really turn the screw.

Lunch - a good flag. I won't be voting for that resolution. A question I have for you (and Addicknt who is also well versed in these things it seems): what is the process by which special resolutions are added to the AGM agenda? Who can suggest them & do they then have to be agreed upon by a certain number of the Directors?

Addicknt, I think it will be telling seeing how BHP (and other big shareholders) vote when it comes to the members of the 'Old Guard' who are up for election this time around. Then we might get a better sense of whether their beef is solely with NM or management more broadly.

Addicknt, Twigger's 'Letter to shareholders' RNS might as well have been entitled 'Letter to PIs'. The bigger shareholders would likely have been aware of BHP's activities (either because BHP approached them directly to get them onside, or SOLG discussed these issues with them during their Corporate Gov roadshow).

For me, this was a red flag to us lot to say 1) this is what has been going on behind the scenes and 2) we are going to need your support to stop our largest, hostile shareholder taking this company away from us.

To claim that the CFP was ‘thrashed out’ 18 months ago is so delusional it’s hard to know where to start.

Quady, a question for you meant in good faith. One of your main reasons for insisting SOLG intends to take Alpala to production is that you believe what the company tells us verbatim. How many times does SOLG have to say that they are going to do something and then not do it before you start to have doubts about what they are telling us?

Addicknt, I said in an earlier post that the reasons presented were vague and too similar to last time around. But one of those presented was ‘extending Cascabel resources’.

As also mentioned earlier, if they had decided that Tandy MRE 1 was good enough to include in the PFS then waiting another few months for the updated resource estimate is a no brainer.

This also allows Daryl an easy win or two when MRE 2 is released and the company publishes a decent PFS with this included. I’m hoping the other fluff they mention is just that - fluff.

Agree though that it’s too vague and leads to speculation and uncertainty.

Sorry Monte but it makes pretty logical sense in my book.

- End of October - Alpala Project Committee meet and advise board to delay PFS
- Board will know at this point that SOLG is very close to appointing Daryl as CEO and that he at the very minimum ought to be consulted on the decision, if not make it himself
- Quarterly MD&A is published with no new news on timing as a decision hasn’t been made
- Same day Daryl is appointed as CEO
- Daryl is told that the Alpala Committee think best way forward is to delay
- SOLG issue news stating the delay

It would have been lunacy for the company to have made such a big call (and no doubt Cautious Keith did not want to make out) and tell the market they were planning on the delay in full knowledge that a new CEO was a mere fortnight away.

It’s frustrating - and you will rightly point to the ridiculous amount of time it took to find Nick’s successor - but it makes sense for my money.

On October 13th we were told that the Alpala Project Committee would be meeting later that month to provide the BoD an update on the best way forward. Perhaps during this session they advised that waiting for Tandy ‘MRE 2’ including holes 19-30 would deliver benefit worth the pain of the delay (Hole 24 was highlighted as similar to Hole 13 and highly promising). They released ‘MRE 1’ just 6 days later so would have had a pretty good idea what that looked like when making their recommendation.

I think the company would do well to give more specifics on the reasons for the latest delay as the update seemed vague and far too similar to what we were told first time around. Coupled with no assurance as to when it will be delivered, I’m now looking at the AGM and concerned with how things will play out. Markets hate uncertainty!

Does this not require a TR1 to be issued to notify the market?

J.Maria the PFS and subsequent DFS will be a crucial piece of the puzzle for investors who we will ultimately have to court to get Alpala built if we do decide to go it alone. To have this as a fluid piece of work will deter investors IMO and the more favourable the PFS/DFS the less capital we will have to raise.

We can’t go cap in hand for X only to return 6 months later and say we only need X minus 1 because we’ve done more work.

Woody I agree with you hence why I say the BoD is on borrowed time as its credibility is at stake, and why you see posters on here with holdings far larger than mine saying they plan on voting against their reappointments (those that are up for re-election). I’m just as p*ssed off at the missed deadlines as the rest of us but I think wholesale change at director level risks dilution which is why I’m going to give them (yet another) shot.

What I think though is immaterial, what matters is whether institutions currently invested and those planning on investing think current management is trustworthy.

I still struggle to see the end game here. Personally I think in an ideal world (for the Old Board) they will find a mine that is easier and cheaper to build than Alpala and try and do that alone first and foremost, thus becoming a cash generating mining company that has credibility amongst investors to take on Alpala. There is no way that BHP and NCM will stick around as minority shareholders and want to watch that happen, so maybe their respective hands will be forced to pay more than what they’d like for the whole lot.