Scotgold Resources Share Discussion Threads

[temmujin] 15/11/2017 21:14

where is VFB1888 ? he was deramping GGP a year or two ago...but look at ggp now...youre a loserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr laddie!

[glenalmond] 14/11/2017 08:35

Continuing on from Steel's post above, with thanks to TLC7 on the London channel ...

"Richard Gray, chief executive of Scotgold Resources Limited (LON:SGZ) tells Proactive they've raised £2.65 mln via a rights issue offering two new shares for every three already held."



Four minutes worth.

[steelwatch] 13/11/2017 13:18

(£2.65m)

[coliwobbles] 12/11/2017 17:59

Dearie me shylock. I thought deliberately posting misleading and inaccurate statements (are yours ever anything else..??) was against the rules...??

So desperate to post something negative (as ever) about SGZ, that you tripped over the ACTUAL facts (hick definitely did NOT sell out) to mislead this bb with untrue 'alternative facts'......guess some things will never change, eh Simon..??

[coliwobbles] 12/11/2017 08:50

Whoops....!!!

Not very often you're right Simon......and would you believe, WRONG again.....ROFL at the sad chap man......

[pr100] 10/11/2017 10:47

A seismic dump by one of the other place's perennial losers as he exits SGZ after 7 years.

At least, I assume that was his 1,010 divestment this morning.

Sad. All he needed was a new CEO.

[steelwatch] 25/10/2017 15:45

Shylock's gone quiet :p

[glenalmond] 25/10/2017 15:00

Blimey steelwatch, there's got to be a couple of dozen piled up there :o

Good shot Sir!

The BPT plant's been busy :p

[steelwatch] 25/10/2017 11:39

..at least:)

[glenalmond] 25/10/2017 10:40

Planning Application Documents updated yesterday, with thanks to Eck71 for posting on LSE.



How many silt bags can you count in Plate 6 at the bottom of the response to SEPA? 14 or 15 anyway. Good stuff :)

[pr100] 17/10/2017 09:49

Another corporate governance shocker from Scotgold -- or is it intentional deception?

The new planning application is under the name of recently formed subsidiary, SGZ Cononish Ltd which, according to Companies House, was incorporated on 21 June 2017.

And yet, the Scotgold Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017, doesn't mention this new subsidiary -- not even in the comprehensive list of all its subsidiary companies.

More incompetence by the CEO or were they trying to hide something? Either way, it's a corporate governance howler which could land them in hot water.

Maybe they should also explain the ridiculous, albeit notional, £100m paid by Scotgold Resources Ltd for the 100 shares of SGZ Cononish Ltd.

[pr100] 14/10/2017 10:46

glenalmond, I've voted your post up for helping the other channel with some rare balance.

However, there are posters who are quick to flag up links to the planning portal when it suits them and I'm certain that some monitor it constantly.

So the failure to flag up the objection was 100% intentional imho.

All of my posts are constructive.

[glenalmond] 14/10/2017 08:27

In all likelihood because they were not aware the NP website had been updated and were therefore not aware of the SEPA objection. It was the first I had heard of it & I've posted the link so readers here will now be aware. I'll put it on the other channel shortly so those readers will also be aware.

Have you anything constructive to add & why do you hang around like a bad smell where ever you go?

[pr100] 13/10/2017 18:21

Did someone already post about this PP objection then?

If not, why not?

[glenalmond] 13/10/2017 17:08

Nothing recent to add apart from your usual bullshine and SEPA's response to the Planning Application from 29th September? You could at least have provided a link for everyone. Here, I'll do it for you ...



Why don't you leave this company alone and attack a proper dodgy looking mob, imo? Try Conroy Gold & Natural Resources (CGNR). You would have fun with them & I might even join you! They're not that far away from us geographically but a million miles away in most other respects, imo.

Enjoy your weekend.

[pr100] 12/10/2017 16:42

Goldbugs love to see gold; investors love to see profits.

So a bar of gold is only good if it makes a decent profit. Do you know how much it cost to produce it?

Come to that, do you know that it is gold?

And if it is, do you know that it belongs to Scotgold?

Don't be dazzled.

[glenalmond] 12/10/2017 16:00

Erm, that parkwatch link's over five months old. Got anything more recent? That 40oz bar looks good though. As a shareholder, are you not quite happy with it?

[pr100] 12/10/2017 13:21

I see that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has objected to the latest mine planning application (not that anyone else here wants to broadcast that fact).

And I assume that the local parks campaigners will be objecting, if they haven't already done so - judging by their blog:



Wee Graham (presumably) and his wife (presumably) fighting the good fight in the Comments section - but not keen (presumably) for this to be discussed here or they would have raised it (presumably).

[pr100] 12/10/2017 08:10

Yes, both Scotgold and wee Graham have a habit of showing you something and not telling you much about it.

[baztea49] 11/10/2017 20:15

40 oz dore = approx. 30 oz Scottish gold sold at premium comes back to approx. 40oz sold at spot price = approx. £40k,Wowsers
The rns said 258 ozs at 30/06/17 inclusive of all gold sold and all in inventory

This means nothing at all just a gimmick. A picture speaks a 1000 words but you need written words for it to mean anything

[pr100] 11/10/2017 19:17

So wee Graham has scampered up the road with his box Brownie to bring us photos of laboriously/expensively produced galena gold. Is he on 24/7 call? Why aren't the photos proudly displayed on the Scotgold website? Surely it's risky taking wee Graham's word for it.

At least that will be another few grand in the bank soon - but imho it's not a sustainable way to produce Scottish gold so presumably they still haven't come up with an efficient processing route for the galena. How many months ago did they say they had abandoned the cupellation thing in favour of a no-brainer leaching trial?

Or maybe they're just killing time up there with the stockpile dwindling (or abandoned?) and months of planning to wait out. No harm in running the galena through again if they have bog all else to do except show school kids around.