Member Info for ToS1963

When the RNS regarding PFS delay came out, I was angry, and posted that I’d changed my mind about supporting the board and would be voting against them; needless to say, having calmed down and reconsidered that knee jerk response, I do agree with Bozis sentiment here.
Still very unhappy with recent performance, and continual failure to meet self set deadlines , and poor comms, however to vote against current board, at this key point in the very long journey, would be counter productive to my investment. I’ve come this far, what another year (or five)! Someone kick me and remind me of this next time my grumpy old man persona shows itself on this board..... GLA, I genuine Believe it won’t be long now until we start to see some of the long promised exit points.

Delighted, and slightly relieved to see us back to doing what we do best. Also issuing RNS that might move SP in positive direction for a change. Personally hoping we can continue in this vein, and leave the corporate BS to Citi as that’s what they’re paid for. Let’s under promise and over deliver for a change. Yesterday was a shocker. A “straight to DFS” statement from the new boy at the AGM would be a most welcome start to his Solgold career......

Novice.... I always try to be nice, and take the point you make, but calling me a moron does undermine it a bit.

FTJNY hoping I can pick up more shares on the cheap.... did you think about that before you wrote it?! The shares ARE cheap. That’s the flipping point! Feathering my nest? With Solgold? Clearly not invested? Then why post here of all places?
Your assertions make absolutely no sense whatsoever I’m afraid. But believe what you will.

We don’t own any of the resources. the Ecuadorean state do. That’s where the licences come in, something I’m sure BHP are well aware of.

Copperpot to summarise the recent agreement, the Ecuadorean government grant/extend Solgold license to operate for a few more years on the proviso we spend a pre agreed amount of money. That allows us to continue exploration work. That is all.
Extraction rights have yet to be granted, and won’t be without a proper mine design, environmental agreements, safety policy etc etc. All of which must be preceded by a PFS. All the recent agreement bought us was a bit more time. At huge cost. It’s hardly a shining endorsement of our progress to date.

Truthfully, I’m unsure we’ll ever see a PFS from this company. Reading between the lines, I don’t think they can make the numbers work, and FN aside, there’s little indication of a substantial stream of finance.
If by some miracle, we strike a superb near surface deposit nearby, seems to be the last big hope from a dying BoD.
Lord I’m so annoyed today.

Sjn1980 with respect, we can make as many discoveries as we like, and yes, they may well result in a short term lift to the SP, but unless and until we show we are capable of getting the stuff out the ground economically, we are going nowhere. The annual report, out very recently, has got the PFS all over it, progressing well, blah blah. Yet they knew, at time of publication, that this delay was coming. That’s sailing far too close to misleading the market for my liking.

Colonel yes, I’m aware they’re not up for vote, but you answer your own point regarding this. I’m expecting fireworks next month, and confess to feeling slightly sorry for the new CEO.
The renumeration vote will be particularly interesting..., there’s always one of those.

Colonel... you could have written the exact same post a year ago.

I said a few weeks on here that I would be supporting the board, albeit reluctantly, in order to protect my investment.
Changed my mind. I’ve had enough. Board are toast.

Apologies in advance, as I can’t see the article so am having to make an assumption or two. Can I ask.... who is putting up the $430 mill over 10 years? Is it the government (unusual and unlikely I’d say) or us ( much more probable). If it’s us..... isn’t this just a (very) large commitment, which was always on the cards, in order to secure the licence going forward? If so.... won’t the market react negatively, seeing as it’s unclear right now where we will fund this? Sorry if that appears negative, but that’s my take. On the positive side, can’t see a 10 year finance estimate being issued without the PFS, so I’d expect both....... imminently!

Quady.. 100% agree with you regarding share manipulation. Also share your hope that people don’t try to report it. Certainly hoe they don’t distract the company with this nonsense.

Or Theron, thanks as well. Hadn’t seen the Lumina RNS, but it concurs with my understanding of the Act. My assumption (which granted may be wrong) is that shortly before, or immediately upon, the PEA, we would be in the two year economic evaluation stage for Cascabel. Over two years have passed, so I further assume we must have applied for the two year extension. However in the absence of comms from the company, I’m left making blind assumptions that could be completely wrong. Yet this information is absolutely critical to the ongoing value of our investments.
It’s like holding a mortgage on a 99 year leasehold property that might, or might not, have two years to run.

Lunch.... good post and thanks for reminder. This should ease concerns around majority of concessions, which are, presumably, still in initial exploration. My assumption would be that Cascabel is not though?

Ok I’ve asked the company. Response will be posted if I receive one.
Hi

As a long term shareholder, I am becoming concerned about the pace of progress on Cascabel/Alpala, and in particular how it may impact our licence to operate.
Ecuador Mining Act is clear that we only have two years to complete the economic evaluation, or face the license being revoked. We can apply for a further two year extension, but by then, an exploitation license needs to have been applied for on the back of the economic evaluation.
Now, can you let me know
The start date that was applied to the economic evaluation
When the existing license runs until
Have we applied for an extension
When do you anticipate applying for the exploitation phase

Without this knowledge, my entire investment is at risk

Many thanks

Italian... yet despite all these challenges, they HAVE found the time..... twice recently.... to RNS regarding unimportant distractions to their current heavy workload? They’ve spent more time on boardroom politics than on exploration, economic evaluation, an mine design. At least that’s what the corporate comms reflect.

Sharketmare you’ve stated exactly what I fear regarding BHP. I didn’t say it, for fear of posters on here jumping down my throat and accusing me of scaremongering, or deramping my own investment.
Absolutely guarantee that whilst we don’t know the latest position on the licences, you can guarantee BHP do.

Why bid for something if you can wait a year and get it for free,

Articles 36 and 37 are, to me, the key extract, and I for one would like some reassurance from the company. If they’re not too busy playing corporate boardroom games, and seeking votes in a power struggle. Perhaps they could actually get on with the day job, and interact with their shareholders in a positive fashion.

Following exploration stage, we have two years to complete the economic evaluation, and apply for an exploitation licence. If necessary, and at cost, we can apply for a further two years in order to complete the economic evaluation. Failure to meet these criteria results in the government “extinguishing” the licence.

Now personally, I don’t give a rats a* if we’ve got a new CEO, or if BHP are preparing a bid, until I find out if we’ve applied for, and been granted such an extension.

Forget today’s SP, or 45p low ball, or £1.32, or whatever....... we screw this up, we get zip.

Bubble / Lunch I’ve changed the post heading, but in response to Bubbles original point, and Lunches reply, I too have long been looking for an update on the position and current status of each of our licence holdings. When our resident poster with direct 1-2-1 access to the board offered to ask our questions, I asked him to ask this very thing, but he didn’t or couldn’t oblige.
For every exploration company, the longevity of the licences, and making tangible progress against them, is a key risk factor. Indeed, it it continually listed as such in each and every one of our annual reports. This is particularly true in reasonably unproven jurisdictions. It’s not just BHP and major shareholders who can disrupt and influence here. Lasso and his government actually could present a far bigger threat if we are seen to fail to progress satisfactorily against pre agreed timeframes. We’ve held some of these licences for a very, very long time, and if the company has announced any agreed extensions, I haven’t seen them. If we fail to commence build at Alpala soon, that clearly puts us in default against Ecuadorean mining licence rules.

https://www.tzvs.ec/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LeyMineria-Eng-102016.pdf