We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
As well as general market wobbles, I think investors are also somewhat hesitant about this project given last year's phantom drill, which was never satisfactorily explained. This will only be forgotten once drill core information starts to be published.
Game on :)
May not be long to wait until first Red Setter drilling update either - hopefully Terra Search will perform some preliminary analysis of the drill core at their camp in Telfer before sending it for assays, like they've just announced for the drill holes in Queensland.
For the love of god Bamps, can’t you even be bothered to read the RNS releases and consider the factual veracity of your statements? I assume you are joking and can’t be that clueless? Here are some examples of factual inaccuracies in your earlier post, just to evidence to you how it might be best to think before spewing inaccurate verbiage onto a page:
Erroneous Statements:
1) “presentation of Feb 21 ( yes that’s the latest information shareholders have been given)” - NOT TRUE. Wishbone have issued subsequent highly detailed RNS releases with further information about the Red Setter targets, including geo physical modelling.
2) “there is no gold shown on the drill logs or cross section” - NOT TRUE. As you have just corrected yourself in a later post, I assume you realise this error, as indeed there was gold shown. Clearly, those grades discovered in previous drilling are not in themselves economic grades but there is well articulated geophysical evidence why this is highly encouraging and may evidence a mineralised body below – if you read the latest RNS releases, perform your own desk research to pull prior drill reports from the WA government website, and understand where the drill holes sit in connection with the latest geo physical models of the magnetic anomaly, you *might* understand why this is such an exciting prospect.
3) “ What it shows is a copper project , a small spherical target of maximum 100m” - NOT TRUE. There are multiple geophysical targets, of vastly greater size and different shape to that you’ve suggested – READ LATEST RNS RELEASES AND VOXLER 3D IMAGES
4) On Wishbone II: “They both look like gold areas it doesn’t look like copper.” – NOT TRUE. Read the past exploration updates on Wishbone II where sampling has clearly identified copper-gold mineralisation at multiple targets.
So, there you go. Examples of multiple factual inaccuracies in your post. I know my facts. Next time check yours…
Bamps, your commentary about Red Setter is simply not factually accurate. Perhaps read all of the RNS releases first before providing your armchair expertise? At least then you’re analysis will have an air of credibility about it.
Littlepost - here are my thoughts on the points you raise:
Newcrest's option to acquire an additional 5% of GGP will raise cash for GGP now, but will obviously reduce the NPV attributable to GGP from the Havieron project as their final share would reduce from 30% to 25%, therefore it should be broadly net net neutral when estimating GGP's value. My very rough figures below assume that GGP retains 30% of the project, so my valuation figures should be reduced further assuming Newcrest do indeed finalise exercise of their option, but this would be offset by the cash injection from cash received by Newcrest. Overall there should be not much impact.
On your second point, clearly it is rational to assign some value to exploration assets with evidence of mineralisation or a credible hypothesis for an economic mineralised deposit. The question is what value should be assigned? I assume that most investors take a probabilistic approach. In the case of Wishbone, there is a small but credible chance of a large economic discovery, based on evidence presented to-date. Wishbone own 100% of their licences. One could estimate that there is a 5% chance of discovery with a realisable value of US$500m (these are completely made up numbers - each investor would have to make their own assumptions), so US$500m x 5% = GBP 20m, which is broadly WSBN's market cap today. Obviously there are other factors involved (e.g. funding position, other assets/liabilities, etc.) but this is how I start my assessment at a high level.
Just to reiterate, I am not knocking GGP. I think there is a reasonable chance that Havieron will grow significantly and GGP may make other world-class discoveries as it has a very strong land package. Long term I think it will do well. However, I am pointing out that in the current situation, it seems there is a fair degree of speculation in the share price. Also I would point out that if/when Newcrest do agree the price to exercise their 5% option on Havieron, this will need to be RNS'd and the current market valuation of Havieron will be clear for all to see - at this point, it will be obvious whether I am right or wrong.
Littlepost - the NPV of the project mentioned in a recent GGP presentation of US$508m is potentially misleading as it is not instantly clear (unless you read the slide carefully including the very small print notes at the bottom) that this is for 100% of the Havieron project, most of which is owned by Newcrest. When the JV passes stage 4, Newcrest will own a minimum of 70% of Havieron. Therefore, the NPV relevant to GGP’s valuation is 30% of the total project NPV. I used this % to arrive at my very rough figures below.
JerseyCrew - please do drive your bus through the point - useful for me and everyone else to consider as your points may be relevant to future considerations here. I believe debate is helpful, especially with well considered opposing views.
I am not knocking GGP and my suggestion below is not my base case. I’m just pointing out that retail investor enthusiasm for GGP has driven it to prices which, in my opinion, include a good deal of speculation, so there is scope for declines if things don’t turn out as expected.
I am interested in WSBN for a few reasons I’ve previously outlined along with my knowledge of the evolution of GGP which I think could repeat here. Whilst you may not recall, I held GGP for years and posted numerous times on the board there. I recognise your name and I am deeply familiar with the company. Like you, I made an enormous return from my GGP holding, so I’m not a complete novice in that regard. I sold out at the same time as Stephen Beetham (remember him posting from the BVI, trading the shares causing significant price swings, whilst talking about seeing Branson from time to time? Haha).
Here is my reasoning for each of my key assertions:
1)“Newcrest has control of the asset and GGP's future is constrained by their actions” - I don't think this is disputed since Newcrest have majority ownership of the asset, are funding the majority of the development, and are fully in charge of the development process.
2) “The realisable value of the asset is still very uncertain” - Greatland’s most recent published NPV figure is $508m (not all attributable to them) at US$1750 gold (probably a reasonable long term estimate) (based on an initial 2 Moz AuEq, of which Greatland owns 30%). Greatland have since upgraded their mineral reserve est to 6.5 Moz, so very roughly, if 100% of that reserve was developed, assuming the same head grade (unlikely - I suspect it will be lower based on drill results), this would equate to an NPV attributable to GGP of roughly US$495m or GBP 401. When compared to their current market cap of GBP 544m, their valuation seems high. Most gold mining companies trade at a substantial discount to NPV, so there is obviously quite a bit of speculative market value included for growth of Havieron and/or new discoveries. If Newcrest acquired GGP they would be unlikely to offer the NPV, but likely something considerably lower. For example, Newcrest acquired 70% of Red Chris for US$806m based on assets with an NPV of US$1.8bn at the time of the deal. This works out as a 36% discount to their attributable share of the NPV acquired. If you take the above NPV of GBP 401m and discount it similarly, you arrive at GBP 257m - less than half the current market cap. This is a complete back of the fag packet calculation but broadly demonstrates my point.
3) What if “Newcrest announced a delay to development of Havieron” - I doubt Newcrest would stop the project given the very encouraging ASIC but this is mining....
A few points to hydrogen:
1) The December RNS releases from Artemis providing visuals of cores from their recent drilling campaign was misleading. Comparisons to Havieron were premature, especially in light of the subsequent lack of mineralisation. Artemis would have known Havieron mineralisation was Copper-Gold bearing, and the copper would have been detectable by XRF. The fact that assays revealed no copper or gold mineralisation, suggests that they either did not perform XRF analysis (seems unlikely with a modern drill team) or performed it, got no readings back, then decided to RNS anyway. Whichever of these two scenarios transpired is not important - either outcome is completely unacceptable and in my opinion warrants an investigation by the appropriate market authorities. Artemis later raised 5m on their London listing, prior to publishing assays, with investors presumably encouraged by their December RNS. The timing of these events is clearly suspect. On this basis, I would suggest anything out of the Artemis camp should be completely disregarded at the present time as it cannot be relied upon.
2) There already IS evidence of "actual copper" hits. Previous drilling showed elevated copper as the drill bit neared the modelled out extremities of the magnetic anomaly. Clearly still very high risk exploration but clear evidence is there to support the drilling hypothesis. This is not an Artemis-style shot in the dark, instead this is follow-up drilling targeting previously identified mineralisation based on updated geo physics.
3) GGP has a wonderful discovery. However, it is deep underground and there are still many years of development drilling, planning and engineering to bring the asset to production. Newcrest has control of the asset and GGP's future is constrained by their actions. The realisable value of the asset is still very uncertain. If Newcrest announced a delay to development of Havieron (for example, in the event that there was another very sizeable discovery made near to Telfer at more accessible shallower depths which Newcrest acquired and decided to prioritise), GGP's share price would likely take a very significant hit. GGP is not the guaranteed cash cow you suggest and GGP's current market is already high, so there is certainly a risk of a decline in such an event.
Each to their own, but in my opinion this is not as clear cut as you imply.
I was wondering the same jt.
I think your first point is the most likely. If you look at the historic charts for Greenland Gold, they rose 200% in the days just before the announcement of the Havieron discovery - clearly inside information leaked from the assay results. The puzzling thing here is that there has been no mention of drill material being sent for assay, nor any other news other than the start of drilling in several weeks (and even that is not definite). It's all a bit strange, especially the rise yesterday in otherwise dire markets.
I don't think any entity would acquire WSBN at this stage as it is pure play exploration - too much career risk to acquire if it turns out there are no mineralised deposits.
I think it is unlikely that any fund would have taken a material short position in WSBN as the risks are too great - there are relatively few shares in public hands because th free float is quite low and Poulden controls a large %. There is a high chance of a short squeeze, so unlikely candidate to short in any significant volume.
So instead we should follow your cross ramping, invest in Evraz (suspended, potential 100% loss), and invest in ARV (highly misleading recent RNS, 33% loss over past 5 days)? Maybe focus on your own investments and work on developing your own common sense rather than telling everyone else how delusional they are?
Have you looked at his CV? Difficult to claim he is out of his depth with this minnow of a share given his background, other corporate involvements, and high % holding in this stock. It seems that regional delays (Covid, hot weather season, etc.) mean there simply isn’t anything noteworthy to report just yet. He owns so much of the stock here I’m sure his communications are purposefully thought out to be in the best interest of stock holders over the medium-long term. Short term who cares - it’s a pure-play exploration stock, it’s going to be extremely volatile.
Unmineralised? Not sure about that.
Red Setter has already returned evidence of mineralisation. The 2014 drill report stated the following:
"Anomalous copper values were intersected in EPT2175 (Sm@181ppm Cu from 142m), and in EPT2176 (4m@252ppm Cu from 90m)."
Both the historic drill report and Wishbone's subsequent commentary state the above mineralisation was encountered right at the end of the drill holes. Terra Search's latest analysis and modelling show that the 2014 drill holes scratched the outer edge of the main mag anomaly right at the end of the holes, so this mineralisation might be an indicator that the whole anomaly is indeed mineralised (and hopefully with much higher grades at its centre).
Cottesloe looks interesting - Wishbone's neighbours Rincon Resources are investigating the possibility of a deep mineralised system, which might have some positive implications for Wishbone's tenements as well.
Hopefully things will kick off again later this month. When Greatland was performing early stage drilling at Havieron, before having constructed a local camp at the site, they RNS'd a start of the drilling in mid-April to coincide with the slightly reduced temperatures following the Dec-Mar peak summer period (when no drilling took place due to extreme regional heat). From WSBN's recent RNS, it seems like they might be working to a similar schedule.
Of course you did, despite posting on the very same day at that price about how Evraz provides "a great chance here to get a fabulous dividend and also cheap stock in a multi billion profit company".
You are clearly a complete chancer and no one should take anything you say seriously.
I see that our resident flip-flop poster and armchair guru extraordinaire Cela's latest investment isn't exactly panning out as he announced it would - despite his grandiose proclamations on this site about an imminent divi and share price rises, Evraz has now canned their divi and suspended their shares. If Abramovich's shareholding is seized by UK authorities, I would imagine that Russia will move to nationalise a large chunk of Evraz's Russian asset (and possibly also their Ukranian assets) in a tit-for-tat move and could take years for Evraz to litigate.
Just goes to show how some of the more vocal and negative posts on here are made by people who spout absolute clueless nonsense.
This seems like a complete non-issue. Sounds like a catchup to tick off an AIM rule disclosure that was overlooked previously.
RP joined NQ as a non-exec just a few weeks before they called in the administrators. They were obviously up the creek without a paddle at that point and my guess is they were not entirely open with RP before his appointment (who would accept an appointment like this that exposes you to personal legal jeopardy - certainly not a wealthy businessman who is also a qualified barrister like RP). Given his background, I’m sure RP was aware of his personal legal exposure in respect of being a non-exec director of a company in Aus trading while insolvent - RP was probably instrumental in looking at the business, considering whether it was a going concern and then calling in the administrators ASAP so he was not personally liable. This is my assumption given the very short time between him joining and the RNS re a trading halt.
Good move Cela. Personally I like the risk/reward odds here and think the Terra Search aeromag/IP/previous drill data on the targets at Red Setter look very promising. I have a high risk tolerance and am happy to hold for several years to see whether Wishbone can prove up a resource at one of its exploration tenements, but if short term volatility is a concern I think you made the right move.
Lack of observational reporting means nothing.
Greatland did not rns any observations from their first drill hole on Havieron, HAD001, and that hole included bonanza grades of 100g/t gold and 4.1% copper.
One of the larger Investors here is Myles McNulty. He regularly posts his investment theses on Twitter and his personal website. I find this very helpful reading BUT there is a risk that some PIs might blindly follow his lead and mirror some of his publicised investments without really forming their own view or understanding of the investee companies.
McNulty has had a variable few months, with notable underperformance both here and with AVCT. It is possible that PIs who follow McNulty without doing their own research are either panic selling, having lost faith in McNulty’s investment ideas, or are being forced to sell if they have opened positions on margin at materially higher levels.
With a relatively illiquid stick like MKA, this could contribute to volatility.
I certainly agree with that Cela and hopefully we hear something in the next week or so. UFO released results for several holes at once. If Red Setter results are interesting, hopefully we will get an update within a day or two of hole 1 results being released from the lab.
Greatland had an excellent release today - the nearby area has some phenomenal deposits...