Member Info for TheItalian

Genuine question: is SC 100% actually up for a confirmation vote at this year's AGM or are we just talking about a non option?

Https://www.mining.com/adventus-salazar-delay-construction-of-ecuador-project/

This article gives you a practical idea of the groundwork required from mining companies to advance their projects, the bureaucracy and the variety of parties to negotiate with at each step of the way.

Even if (thankfully) SOLG was granted the 25 year renewal, unlike other companies that got blocked by the referendum, you can still see that SC's seemingly invisible daily grind is actually what is required to make Cascabel a digestible investment proposition. Who is going to deliver that if SC is voted out, just asking the impatient ones?

"Bad people can ruin a good asset"......rings a bell......

Right now 35p sounds fantastic.

Not sure what price corresponds to the 47p we had in 2017 given the subsequent dilution, but it must be thereabouts.

Perhaps another angle to consider, that might reconcile various aspects of what is going on with SOLG, is that the "strategic" outcome is in fact not a sale as we all hope, but rather a financing consisting of debt and streaming/royalties with some equity dilution.

If the majors have not been keen on splashing out 3bln and the current strategy has turned to a smaller kick-off project, it would sit well with a different way to finance Cascabel.

Now that would explain the need to have all the papers in order, which would not be the case if a BHP were to buy.

Thoughts? Could I be on the right tangent?

@addicknt, I think before we can answer with a yes/no, we should ask Scott and Bob for a clear and unambiguous statement about the current price freefall and the lack of clarity about the strategic review.

Even factoring in that there will be things they cannot disclose, if they are made to understand that we ask for that PRIOR TO THE AGM in order to decide whether or not to keep them of kick them out, then we can choose how to vote.

Personally, I buy what Scott says, +/- some, so my starting position would be a YES, however we can see what the effect is on the price so it's still not good enough by a large margin, and the more the price drops the more one needs to accept that the exit price might be a lot lower.

In essence, whatever the actions and relative timing to arrive at a viable resource, we still need much better communications.

Dinner, if those are the numbers, then my #2 action point might be a useful one.

I don't personally think they are being slow on purpose but rather because of may externalities, so hurrying them might make no difference, but one never knows, we could easily speculate on things that might be put in motion if there was a material threat to their position.

For one thing, if some of the shareholders were to vote against SC, which is in their rights of course, it would be a good exercise to 1) estimate the votes that will be in support of SC anyway to see if it's even worth bothering to vote against him, and if the numbers represent a credible threat then 2) reach out to SC and let him know that shareholders don't buy into the Q1 promise and want to see tangible progress before the AGM to better inform their vote.

Otherwise, I think that any protest vote risks being just a waste of time.

Personal opinion that is.

Whatever Eloro, enjoy your day.

@Sharket, my comment was obviously not in the spirit of "mine if bigger than yours", in fact if you actually read it, it refers to the different attitude of punters vs. investors. Eloro's comments denote lack of knowledge about corporate life, inexperience and impatience that are not in line with the reality of and understanding required to investing in a company like SOLG or the entire sector for that matter. That is ok when you just throw some pocket money to see what happens, less so if you are a 10 years investor with the long game in mind. Perhaps my sin is that I expected in good faith to have the intelligent conversations you mention.

Good luck to you and Eloro and everyone else anyway, money is money and we are all here to make more however much.

Thank you Monochrome, always enjoy Willem's wholehearted interviews. You should read his book, al lot of history to back up the money rest story he was talking about here.

And by the way I do believe in the difference between a £1000 punt and a sizable investment, requires a different mindset, risk attitude, commitment and understanding.

Then you should stick to buying Apple and Tesla shares, methink.

Of course I am not ok with the price dropping from 40p to 14p, however I don't analyze companies outside of the macro context and the overall industry dynamics.

If you did the same you might find that particularly after April 2022 exploration and junior mining has been priced down aggressively, the tide has not been in our favour, and in many other juniors' favour for that matter. We reached 40p+ when the tide was higher, and as Warren Buffet said, high tide lifts all boats.

If I may ask, how much have you got invested here? My best guess is that I and others who complain less than you have significant multiples invested and seem to be less stressed out about it.

Which, in my opinion and about the topic of SOLG's management not doing anything, says more about those who make that comment than about SOLG's management.

@Dinner, as per SOLG's 20th July PR, the termsheet has to be approved by the Ecuadorian government. We have not had confirmation of the approval yet.

A BNamericas article from July 20th reads; "In the remainder of July, the Ministry of Finance should issue an opinion certifying that the project will not affect public finances, and at the same time, the Energy portfolio must announce an agreement in which the amount of royalties is legalized. agreed for the project, Santos told BNamericas."

An article in Primicias reads:

The Minister of Energy, Fernando Santos, said on July 19, 2023 that “the transition to the production phase of the Cascabel mine means a positioning of Ecuador as an important producer and exporter of copper .” The signing of the pre-contractual negotiation document will allow the process to continue towards the change of exploitation phase in the consequent replacement of the mining exploitation contract of the Cascabel project , said Santos.

According to the Ministry of Energy, construction of the mine will begin in 2025 and will enter into operation in 2030 .

On balance, I would imply that the government ratification is just a procedural concern, and the government has agreed the termsheet to make sure that SOLG (or whoever buys SOLG) delivers the mine and the agreed economics.

If this BB represents what the market thinks, I think we have proven that there is no such thing as the wisdom of the crowds...

@Eloro, and then what, once you have cast your rebel vote?

Given that the company's main objective is to sell, but to do that we need to advance the project until it becomes viable to the buyer, and given who the big shareholders are even if SC goes, who will follow if SC falls?

Do you really think that we as small shareholders have achieved some new guarantee or sense of security that our interest is going to be more protected?

You must not be very well versed in corporate development matters, and sound like an unlucky capricious punter who put a few k down without really understanding the moving parts and the risks.

Aand another one for the bin....

Come on guys, "things" are not clear only to the extent that we are dealing with a South American government particularly at the wrong time, and with possible investors who have not yet felt the urgency of buying us.

It has become clear by now that NM thought he could sell it but did not do the right things and in fact alienated stakeholders on all fronts, and it's clear that the positive disruption that SC is trying to deliver is based on making the project feasible and economical in the real world, where the probability of either finding a buyer, a JV partner or else raise money for ourselves is higher.

The last thing you want to do is to vote SC out before he can bring the strategy HE HAS EXPLAINED to fruition. The only change we need, is a project that is objectively feasible and economical, and it was not under NM or DC. What would we get is SC is pushed out, other than another setback, lack of clarity and direction, and more exposure to the vultures who are just waiting to get us when we are too weak to negotiate?