Member Info for TheItalian

.

Perhaps spend a bit less time on this BB but make it count.
Pleeeeeeaaaaase!

@SCHLEMIEL, if that makes you sleep better, there is no fault. Trading or investing under stress is never condusive to good results. Good luck for your re-entry and any other investments you have.

@redknight1, when a buyer (or more) show up at the door with a bid, which they likely will around the time when the BFS is published, SOLG can spin off the 100% owned subsidiaries that own the other tenements and just sell SOLG as a shell for Alpala. IMO of course.

I know that many here seem to have a good amount of time to spare so they keep mulling this over and over and over and over again, and debate the topic ad nauseam, but in reality it's quite simple and very well known.
Only a Bankable Feasibility Study delivers an accuracy at or above 90%, so it's only at that stage that a large mining company, or a bank, or a lender, can justify to their own board or shareholders a large expenditure like the one that NM is aiming for.
For reference, even a Prefeasibility study is nowhere near the confidence level of a BFS and can be as low as 30%, while a PEA can be as accurate as 5-10%.
So you really have to appreciate that there are many highly material variables around the resource size that can enhance or reduce the value of the resource, and some have not been defined yet.
I trust none of you would buy a house with a mortgage before knowing the interest rate of the loan, the tax implications and before the surveyour finds out if the house suffers from subsidence or the seller is not the legitimate owner or there were modifications.
This is no different. AS SOLG is pushing towards production, the BFS will be the trigger for any significant corporate activity. Even the Franco Nevada deal is not material enough as it only acknowledges a fraction of the potential true value.
GLA, TheItalian.

It's not about SOLG, the brief analysis is about CGP, attached below.

FRC Opinion
Positive – This is the second failed attempt
by SOLG to acquire CGP. We had
mentioned in a note, following the bid in
June, that SOLG’s bid was not good
enough, and significantly undervalued
CGP’s shares. We continue to believe that
Cascabel is an excellent acquisition target,
and would not be surprised if BHP (ASX:
BHP) or Newcrest / ASX: NCM (who are
also significant shareholders of SOLG) have
a go at SOLG and CGP at the same time.
Note that, in 2016, BHP had made an offer
to farm-in a significant share of SOLG’s
interest in Cascabel, which SOLG rejected.
We are lowering our DCF model’s discount
rate from 12.5% to11.5%, to be in line with
similar stage copper-gold projects, and raise
our fair value estimate on CGP from $4.66
to $7.44 per share. A significant increase in
the company’s equity interest in SOLG
(SOLG shares are up 73% in the past three
months) also contributed to the increase in
fair value.

!

We might be splitting hairs since we are still priced at 34.4 (as I write) but IMHO the charts point to a first tough resistance around the 46p mark, and then a tougher one around the 74p mark, basically both confirmed via Fib extensions. So past the 74p point, the two next targets in a future uncharted price territory would be 118p and 190p.
The wave up to the 16oct peak and subsequent retrace bottoming out yesterday could also be a W1 and W2 as per Elliot wave theory. if confirmed, it would also point out to a W3 reaching to about 74p.
All in theory of course, but looking forward to confirming it in time.
GLA.

Well we are past the 20EMA now anyway, next hope is that we don't want to test the 50EMA, around 31p

.

https://www.mining.com/bhp-scraps-2-5bn-olympic-dam-expansion-plan/
With SOLG mention

@Chinsontur, this is a good and up to date reference.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4357527-gold-miners-m-valuations-q2-2020#:~:text=As%20we%20headed%20into%202020,price%20sitting%20at%20%241%2C720%2Foz.

Whatever works, good luck to you.

@Gary, charts don't read themselves, you need someone who reads the right patterns and signals. Besides that, charts only summarize the effect of past collective price action and to the extent that the personality of a share manifest itself the same way in the future you can have a degree of confidence about what comes next.
Some people make good money correctly correlating technicals to fundamentsls.
The most obvious signal looking at ARS is that at the end of April 2020 it finally broke a very long 2 years downtrending channel and started an uptrend which is still the dominating theme. Based on the existing uptrending channel, the price still moves up and down and so far it actually tends to be quite compliant with Fibonacci levels.
That means though that if one buys at 4p, which is currently in the upper half of the channels, one might experience a paper loss at some point.
But the fact that we are moving in an uptrending market should be a reasonable sign that the market believes that ARS will deliver a high price level, all things staying as they are.
IMHO lower price around 3p, next higher price target 6.2/6.4
GLA with your investments.

@Miagi, I welcome the right challenges, I may have well made some mistakes, hence the capital letters.
All in good spirit.

Long story short, based on the following Alpala-only calculations the SOLG stated strategy is assumed to result in:
- a theoretical take-over price target 4.24 times the current price, at 159.4
- a theoretical production stage price target 20.21 times the current price, at 760.1
which, if anywhere near NM's point of view, probably goes to explain why he is so keen to not sell cheap and achieve a "production-like" valuation.

How I get to those numbers...

Copper M&A at feasibility stage has transacted at an average $193/T in the last 10 years, and $311 for production stage companies.
Gold M&A at feasibility stage has transacted at an average $100/T for companies with low production cost estimated (<$800/Oz), while companies with low production cost like Barrick are valued at around $675/Oz.
Silver I am not too sure about, but currently the Gold/Silver value ratio is around 69.

So before production we are theoretically worth 61.5p for the copper, 89p for the gold, and 8.9p for the silver = 159.4p
If you recalculate with production valuations, it's 99.1p + 600.8p + 60.2p = 760.1
IF I HAVE MADE ANY MISTAKES, ONE OF YOU GOOD PEOPLE WILL SURENLY POINT THAT OUT.

So the gap between the current price and the theoretical price is result of the still missing BFS, the CGP hold-up, the now ending BHP stand-off period, and the SOLG resistance to takeovers before achieving anything close enough to a production valuation.
The BFS will therefore be a game changer IMHO, because it triggers potential official interest from the majorsand CGP needs to repay the debt at which point they have to give in to SOLG.

All in all, which we hate to wait, the future seems bright enough to me.

Happy Sunday everyone.

The comment from the CEO himself is that the geology and therefore the grades are very comparable with the mine next door, which has 11mln oz, but even he says that we don't know how big this is yet. The only article around talking total resource mentions around 2mln oz. Now we all wish to see 10mln plus, buy let's not put out random numbers if they are not supported by data.

Middleeastmoney, Where did get the 13.5 mln oz from?

The price is moving within a channel, yesterday we briefly broke through but it was not a solid rise so we are still inside the channel and given the meteoric rise the next move was going to be down. I think we are more or less done with the drop though, worse case I can see at the moment is around 36p. I think the 1-hour chart is more revealing at the moment, and RSI should no go lower than where it is now. All IMHO, GLA!

@ColonelDrake, is it dilution you are thinking about?