Member Info for ToS1963

DBW.... I, and I suspect most others, hold the same today as we did last week, and will continue to do so. However one of the many purposes of boards like these is to question corporate strategy, discuss feelings about pros and cons of decisions etc. Fridays RNS has led to a good deal of anger here, as it would appear we have wasted a year, and become more vulnerable. Whilst not a good thing, I for one am pretty ambivalent about the drop in SP, because I wasn’t planning to sell. However, it makes the next inevitable dilution likely to be at a much lower price than it should have been. Good luck with your additional shares, clearly I expect them to do well, or I would be selling. I’ve got enough in already, and am looking to exit as soon as possible.

In all this though, please remember at the end of the day, the mine build is just a basic civil engineering project, which any half decent building firm from trusty builder dot com will be able to undertake. ;) sorry Quady, couldn’t resist.

Addicknt..... spot on. Whatever spin you care to put on it, as you say. This is / was an absolute shambles.

Secret squirrel! What the hang is an excreted squirrel!

If we uncovered near surface mineralisation at Tandayama, and if it showed that Cascabel could be better developed resulting in a redesign and a delayed PFS, the sequence of events would have been RNS for Tandayama findings, followed by detailed explanatory RNS on rationale behind redesign, its associated impact to timeline and anticipated cost savings. Whereas we have this..... a CEO moved aside, partials from Blanca, followed by a less than detailed announcement of a significant PFS delay. I don’t buy this excreted squirrel near surface gold strike conspiracy. Sorry.

Quady. Find low level gold, RNS comes out, share price rises, risk of lowball offer disappears, shareholders all happy, everyone understands redesign requirements, everyone wins. No downside. None. Furthermore, discovery of low level gold is certainly material information, which we cannot withhold. Sorry, your conspiracy theory doesn’t stack up, much as I would like it to be true.

Colonel, I too think any license extensions required will be granted, but Solg good standing, and government goodwill, is finite too. Many more misfires or false starts like this week, that could change. Especially if any new government gets cosy with China.

Viable.... very good post. I struggle to understand why some people (and journalists) are saying this is a good thing, to step back and get the design right to avoid costly rework down the line. If the right people, with the right experience were deployed on the design at the start, we wouldn’t be where we are now. And as you, others and myself have pointed out, the license terms are not forever, and we operate in Ecuador jurisdiction at the say so of the Ecuadorean government. I cannot believe that whoever is elected next week will view another year delay as a positive.

I’ve bought in this week. From what I can work out, I am kind of in agreement with emprex. Taking the SD into account, and consolidation, looks like a decent long term hold for me. I think I will reinvest the SD, then put away and forget.

Monte agree with your post, but unsure, and a bit unhappy as things stand with the NM sacked bit. He’s still in charge for the time being, and no indication he’s facing any reduction in salary when he moves aside. Not sure where the blame lies for the PFS fiasco, but his hand was on the tiller at the time so responsibility is his. Someone needs sacking, or a fuller explanation required as to how and why we wasted a year, how much it cost us financially, and why we were sticking to the story on Wednesday (in an official news release to the market) only to about face on Friday.

Hi DBW.... what do you mean by.... “ they won’t get their way with all the placing as others may well pay more”? Any placing will be open to all, surely? It’s not like a placing is a bidding war, it’s a set price. Last one.... in June..... was 21.5p. I hoped next one would be a lot higher, but after yesterday, now have my doubts. Can see us being further diluted at or around the same price as last time.

Scrat I think you’re spot on, particularly due to the usual lack of volume here.... but yesterday was a slightly different matter, and a bit exceptional even for Solg. I think it may have represented an irresistible opportunity for BHP, NCM or the Chinese. Monday / Tuesday should tell us.

Yep. It’s like paying somebody to build you a house. The project manager releases a plan, with milestones for completion of design, and a moving in date. The architect has two attempts at plans, both are rubbish, the project is put back a year, all that time you are paying all the bills and salaries, only to be told they’ve decided to build it somewhere else, are starting the drawings from scratch and now don’t know any of the new delivery dates. Yet some people still regard this as a positive step, because the new design sounds better than the original.

Now that their standstill agreement has expired, why wouldn’t BHP be filling their boots at these prices? Maybe they are, but we’ve not had any TR-1’s yet.

Geordie no apologies necessary, I’ve been ranting all day. I used to lurk but not post on the old ii board. Yes, I wanted (still want) a takeover or JV, but have long ago resigned to that not happening soon. I just wish Solgold were more professional in their releases. Todays was a complete shocker.

Qali interesting piece by SP Angel but really? This bit for example....
“ Given the high-grade core to Alpala, it is entirely understandable that the Project Committee is reviewing the optimal scale, required financing profile and ways to extract the higher grade material early in the project life. “
Isn’t that outlining exactly the approach they should have been taking all along, not starting now after 2 false promises and delays? What... or more importantly who.... has been working on the PFS to this point? What were the faults in their work, how much did it cost (now sunk costs) ? Who gets sacked for it? What specifically are we doing to ensure the third attempt is more professional and plausible than the first two? Where is the new project plan, milestones, what’s the new handover to production date..... I could go on. That SP Angel piece is corporate fluff, lazy journalism, and fools nobody who has done any research into Solgold.

The two responses to my post say
We may have something. And
We don’t have anything approaching a MRE
Both correct. Yet we’re now changing the entire mine design, and delaying the PFS on the assumption we do have something, and a future MRE will prove this. That’s the bottom line, and the companies stated position.
Which is why we fell 16% today.

derisk not Derek!

Upfront costs will br greatly reduced by going open pit initially before block cave. This is a valid statement if we prove near surface mineralisation. This basic fact has been known since we started drilling Alpala, many years ago. To date, we have nothing definitive which says we have discovered any economically viable stuff in or near Alpala which meets this criteria. We have now decided to spend more time and effort trying to discover something which does, in order to Derek’s the overall project and make it more financially viable (and subsequently less dilutive). I really, really hope that we have something (I.e. a MRE) that proves this new plan is viable and sensible. But if we do have such proof, why haven’t we released it?

Quady, you’ve provided a link to the October figures. Latest ones were released on Wednesday

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/8349N_1-2021-2-3.pdf