Member Info for ToS1963

In fact.... I’d go as far as to say that using terms like “shorters” in the context of Dev could be construed as a double bluff, and worries me somewhat.

Barnard d’oh! Apologies, just realised your were posting the AD tweet which said this. I’m a supporter of Dev, and holding a wee bit more than is usual for me here in terms of %age of my portfolio....l but that tweet is utter nonsense. IMHO. This share is going places without that kind of unnecessary bull.

Barnard... what evidence do you have that this is being shorted? Frankly your last post made no sense to me whatsoever.... which is unusual.

Bad news for you. This is far, far, from a minimal risk play. Especially if we go it alone. A JV or sale would greatly mitigate some of this.
For balance, the good news is that IMHO, the perceived risks are baked into the low SP here, given the assets in the ground.
That’s the play here. If it was as risk free as you suggest, SP would be far nearer value of mineral minus cost to build mine and extract them.

Have you been following the Oyu Tolgoi story? (And Rio are very experienced at this kind of thing, and Mongolia are a bit further down the mine building journey than Ecuador)

https://www.solgold.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SOLG-Annual-Report-2019-FS-and-Notes-Final-Signed-.pdf

Page 53 onwards Quady.

Quady.... “There is no risk in taking this to production” serious question - did you really mean to be as categoric as that? Did you read my response yesterday to the newish poster asking for a bearish view? Your posting history suggests you cannot be that naive, surely. There is no risk, at all, faced by Solgold in the next 5+ years? Come on man. We must be more balanced on here with our input. There’s risks galore, outlined on Solgolds own website in their annual report if you care to look. And I can think of plenty. Yes I hold. Yes I think there’s a good chance of a significant return. But no risk? Really?

Unbiased.... to answer the title you used,I think it would be madness to short this, for the reasons you outline. However, for a bearish view, you only have to consider the risk factors behind your “as long as they don’t screw up” statement. There’s quite a bit can, and probably will, cause issues between where we are now, and becoming a producing mine. Especially if you’ve never done it before. Many risk factors are not even around the design and build. Despite recent positive steps, Ecuador remains a country with limited extraction policies, and a history of resistance to them. Nobody foresaw Covid. The risks are obvious and many.
All that said, I remain a LTH, because there is also great potential rewards here.

12:30 I think

For those saying the recent drop represents a good last chance to top up...... I make this the 6,458th last chance to top up we’ve enjoyed (or endured) since 2011.
Merry Xmas everyone.

Have reached the dizzy heights of 100% up on my holding here.... should really topslice, as that was my intention all along, but reluctant to do so prior to any prospectus or trading statement, as I now believe this may have further to go. Nice problem to have for a change! Have decided to hold on a bit longer, into January at least, to see how this pans out. Hope I’m not being greedy here, and ultimately end up regretting not selling a chunk at this level.

It’s all very confusing.

Hi Hawkspear.... agree, that a cheap coup was what BHP etc were after, which is why I voted in support of current board. But to answer your question regarding whether they would look after my interests or not..... if they bid enough, yes, they will.

Yep Lafitte.. just checked, here it is....

Once the mining concession has been granted, in large and medium-scale mining, the concessionaire is subject to the following phases and terms:

up to four years of initial exploration;
up to four years of advanced exploration; and
up to two years of economic evaluation of the deposit, which can be extended for an additional two-year period.
During the final phase, the concessionaire must apply for the commencement of the exploitation phase of the project. Within six months of beginning the exploitation phase, the concessionaire, in the large-scale mining category, must sign a mining exploitation contract with the Ecuadorian government, although negotiations may begin during the economic evaluation phase. As indicated, artisanal, small- and medium-scale mining operations do not need to sign a mining exploitation contract with the Ecuadorian government.

Ownership of mining concessions is distinct from ownership of the surface land.

Lafitte.... I think the terms of the Ecuador licenses prevent holders from sitting on the asset.

Good post from Colonel earlier. I won’t be able to watch today, playing golf, but looking forward to catching up later this afternoon. Here’s what I’m hoping for; all resolutions passed, bringing some much needed clarity around the future. Whether or not you believe in the present direction, the one thing that’s certain to stifle SP is uncertainty, which the markets hate. I would also like it to be obvious that BHP are onside with NM, at least for the time being. Their combination of holdings will ensure that any CGP plus NCM grumblings remain as background noise. If this happens, and with today’s RNS, I would hope to get above 40p by close. This also leaves open the likelihood of a BHP JV going forward... which should allow for a serious rerate. All IMO of course.

Addicknt.... I think by their words and actions, it’s clear there’s a rift between CGP and the Solg. Although they haven’t specifically come out and said so, I suspect there is also tension or disagreements on strategy between NCM and Solgold. But BHP have said nothing, and I personally believe Bloomberg just included them in their piece without consent, or a BHP source, to sensationalise/bring something new the article. They have plausible deniability the way it’s written. Tomorrow should clarify things somewhat.

Apologies for the cut and paste from Wikipedia, but I couldn’t find the original story..... this is how reliable Bloomberg are....

On December 16, 2019, France's financial markets watchdog, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), fined Bloomberg €5,000,000 for a report based on a fake news release that triggered a plunge in the shares of French construction giant Vinci and wiped billions off its market value. The AMF said Bloomberg distributed "information that it should have known was false" and that Bloomberg did not respect journalistic ethics "as no verification of the information was undertaken before publication"

It’s modern day typical shoddy, lazy journalism, and is of no worth whatsoever. I mean...

“ according to people familiar with the matter. The people asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. “

That could refer to me. (It doesn’t)

Woodward and Bernstein must be quaking.

Oh and Quady.... as a genuinely friendly aside, phrases like “try some clear thinking” are confrontational and unnecessary. Things like that may encourage ne’er do wells to come on here and be abusive towards you.