Solgold Share Discussion Threads

[lefrene] 24/2/2020 09:12

The court ruling is very positive and confirms that the government is pro mining and pro sticking to contracts, which is necessary to sustain confidence. You'd think with that ruling and the price of gold heading North, that there would be buyers here, not sellers, unless of course some people are leveraged and need money to plug holes elsewhere as the wider market takes fright.

[mknight] 24/2/2020 08:59

Added and will keep buying at these levels .

[mknight] 24/2/2020 07:48

So after the news this morning 75 solgolds sites just became extremly valuable .

Skys the limit today .If we lost 40p to 25p on the CC news before then this should add 15p to the Sp over the coming days.

Gold up to 1665 wont do us any harm either .

Just to add that the news today will help funding .

[fsawatcher] 24/2/2020 07:35

it might not be clear to you what is driving the price breakout or better described... recovery... but to many .... we know exactly why it's moving now.

If you have a reason for the fall from 45p let us know and then ask yourself why you are looking for reasons for the rise?

Use your head.

[silversoldier] 24/2/2020 06:40

Alarmist should read *the chart Bloody predictive test

[silversoldier] 24/2/2020 06:27

Personally I see the 19 level as a fantastic base for this to continue its rerating, alarmist looks like a double bottom on the chart having been at this level before. Given the current economic backdrop anyone managing a portfolio will be looking to add gold exposure, whilst gold continues higher, Solomon should follow.

[lowtrawler] 23/2/2020 23:30

It's still not clear what has been driving the price break-out. It could be as simple as a re-rating with no underlying news - volume of only 7.1m shares traded on Friday leaves that as a possibility.

If it is any other underlying news, we will be last to hear about it. I think a lot of the LSE speculation is quite interesting but without any hard facts. I'm hoping for news on Monday but won't be surprised if there is silence. Fingers crossed.

[mknight] 23/2/2020 20:59

Linus1

Yes it could happen . We are not on AIM anymore .

But there are still plenty of traders to try and drop it back to enable them to buy again cheaper.

I will buy tomorrow whatever happens as the price imho is o la going one way short term .

[lunus1] 23/2/2020 18:44

MK I’ve seen this so many times with AIM where you think it’s broken out only to slip back. Although I’m stuck in UJO I hope for all involved it does. Probably be Q4 before I can get involved and will be interesting to see where it is then. Good luck all.

[mknight] 23/2/2020 07:51

I think now the price has gone up from 19 to 22.8 it actually has reminded people of how cheap this is . I will be ready to buy early tomorrow as a value of 400 million is still way to cheap..

We have nearly 100 billón of COPPER.GOLD and SILVER . With funding the mine cost recovery in less than 4 years .

Too cheap ..

[book5] 22/2/2020 23:12

Alway
Uk, but it is possible to find and contact people through social media

[markth126] 22/2/2020 21:44

It's not, just ramping

[smoothtrader] 22/2/2020 21:43

Can u please post it here.. Im not on twitter.

[alwaysevolving] 22/2/2020 20:27

Where are you based Book5?

[mknight] 22/2/2020 17:47

22.8 is just too cheap so up again Monday to around 26p seems possible WITHOUT news.

[jammytass] 22/2/2020 16:42

30p monday

[book5] 22/2/2020 14:08

Thanks newspaper does not open link, so i looked for it on newspaper and copied text here

Por segunda vez consecutiva, las preguntas planteadas por el prefecto de Azuay, Yaku Pérez, para la realización de una consulta minera en el Azuay, no pasaron el control constitucional. La tarde de hoy, viernes 21 de febrero del 2020, el Pleno negó y archivó ese pedido. En el dictamen de la CC se establece que “la consulta popular presentada por Yaku Pérez Guartambel,
a nombre propio, no cumple con los parámetros de control formal y material previstos en la Constitución y la Ley Orgánica de Garantías JurisdiccionalesR21;. Respecto de la primera pregunta, sobre la ampliación de las zonas en las que se prohibiría las actividades mineras, la CC señaló que “el planteamiento en una sola pregunta, tanto de zonas ecológicas diversas como de todas las escalas de la minería, hace que la misma sea compuesta y atentatoria de la claridad y lealtad exigidas por la ley. Así es que no provee al ciudadano de la libertad necesaria para elegir”. Sobre la segunda pregunta, que tiene que ver con la cancelación de las concesiones mineras en Azuay, la Corte Constitucional estableció que “plantear una consulta respecto de la cancelación automática de concesiones previamente otorgadas, comporta un efecto retroactivo que, al ser indeterminado, afecta el derecho constitucional de la seguridad jurídica”. Yaku Pérez presentó este pedido el 7 de enero pasado. Esto ocurrió después de que en septiembre del 2019, la Corte negara su primera solicitud por considerar que la pregunta planteada “no garantiza la plena libertad del elector, ni cuenta con un apego constitucional”;.

Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por Diario EL COMERCIO en la siguiente dirección:
hxxps://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/mineria-corte-niega-consulta-popular.html. Si está pensando en hacer uso del mismo, por favor, cite la fuente y haga un enlace hacia la nota original de donde usted ha tomado este contenido. ElComercio.com

[goodgrief] 22/2/2020 12:35

Computer says ¡UPS!

[pob69] 22/2/2020 12:29

This news came after the close of session in London so not directly impacting on the day's movement but very important and positive nevertheless: Solgold $SOLG $SOLG.L $CGP #cascabel #ecuador...

Constitutional Court denies again request for consultation of Yaku Pérez