The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Anyone else think the size of the raise is particularly strange? I really can’t see SD wanting to use valuable funds for acquisition now the 70% could be on the table.
My view is that there could be a change to the mining plan to increase tonnage. Second decline potentially? Would be great to get some more thoughts on this.
Potter I read this board daily and have been invested over 3 years. If you can’t understand what the drill results are showing then you shouldn’t be invested, I literally copy and pasted the words from the RNS.
Samplank has my logic not been proved correct? Look at the reaction to my post, only one person understands.
I’m quoting the RNS napthman, I am highlighting something that 95% of people won’t understand or can’t be bothered to read. Is it wrong for me to highlight this to the average investor? Still long on GGP.
Bujler if you don’t understand that the nugget gives a false image of the average grade then I can’t help you sorry. We don’t want nuggets, we want linear grade at those depths for it to be economical.
“If the peak Au grade of 393g/t Au is cut to 10g/t Au; the interval becomes 18.25m @ 1.04g/t Au.”
Don’t get me wrong these are amazing first drill results and I am excited but come on guys do you actually know what you’re reading, without the nugget @393g/t it’s a pretty average intercept for the depth. Just trying to explain to those who are scratching their head wondering why we aren’t up 50%.
An equity raise to fund the 70% works.. just not at our current mcap. I bet Shaun is kicking himself we aren’t sat at a £1billion+ valuation. Hoping to be proved wrong as owning 100% would be life changing to all involved no matter what price you average.
I am a shareholder for over 2 years, currently buying at these levels will hold until 1 month prior to production, I have no agenda. I simply wanted to discuss something that’s caught my eye, missing tonnage in the MRE2 and a lack of growth potential in the 0-800m levels. Any posts that aren’t ramps seem to have no room for discussion on this board.
HAD133, HAD133W1 and HAD117W6 are all included in the MRE2 tonnage/resource update provided by GGP.
I will revisit this at some stage in the future and I will apologise if I’m incorrect.
For clarity, I believe there will be minimal resource growth in the levels 0-800m. Thanks for your time Bamps no hard feelings.
My last post was for Bamps
What are the drill hole numbers that have been punched into the 0-800m level that aren’t included in MRE2 that support your point?
@Hydro
I’m talking purely about the main pipe between the levels 0-800m, the top of the EB is 850m and is outside of the main pipe. I’m not here to disturb let’s have a serious discussion. Between 0-800 which includes EVERY drill hole in those depths we have c70mt when it should be 600mt. Are you able to explain this?
@bamps
I’m sorry I mean no malice in my posts but you did not explain at all where the missing 600mt is.. your response of ‘I know but I’m not telling anyone’ highlights infact that you have no clue just the same as me!
Paddy produced an MRE in August 2020 in which he calculated 7Moz to a depth of 600m, his tonnage was significantly out so I’m not the only one confused with the missing tonnage. (Not a jab at Paddy I enjoy his posts).
@Bamps21, Do you think there is significant resource growth potential in the levels 0-800m?
If the answer is YES then please show me which drill holes in these levels can add to the tonnage.
The answer I believe will be NO. GGP included every drill hole to date between the levels 0-1000m and only produced 78mt??
There is 600mt missing, and nobody has an answer?
*specific gravity of 3 was used
*deposit widens 800-1000m but not enough for 600mt
Hi bamps thank you for your reply, I know your knowledge is superior to mine but I believe you are incorrect with your statement. In the GGP RNS there is a table that shows we have 45mt in the SE crescent and 33mt in the Breccia. If the missing 600mt is going to the included in the bulk mining why wouldn’t GGP include it in their resource update as this would increase the recourse by multiples? I really feel like the missing tonnage needs to be discussed more on the board, has it been excluded due to insufficient drilling density? Below cut off grade? Non mineralised areas? Either way it’s bothering me
From GGP’s ore reserve update we can calculate the following, 78mt @ c2g/t to a depth of approximately 1000m below cover giving a gold equivalent of 5.9Moz.
To the depth of 1000m the tonnage is 680mt, where is the missing 600mt? Has it been left out because of cut off grades? Is this tonnage not mineralised? I understand a small portion of the tonnage will be put into future resource updates but if you look at the diagrams there isn’t a lot of resource growth potential between the depths 0-800m they seem to have found the boundaries. Below 800m the deposit is wide open. Can someone please help me to understand, I appreciate any response.
I do find it odd that their contract runs until October 2022 but SD stated in the recent interview they expect to reach the orebody Q4 2023. Any thoughts on this?
Hydro, any chance you could share your prediction for the AISC? IMO the market will be pricing in $800-1000, anything above this and we will get crushed. I’m expecting $600 range but then again who knows until we know.
The market seems to be pricing in a $800-1000 AISC based on current market cap and known resource. Sub $800 AISC for the ‘fast start’ will really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Thanks for sophisticated reply zoros, I appreciate it. Everyone wants the SP to move but nobody realises that the biggest catalyst is reaching the orebody.
I’ve been invested here 18 months and extremely bullish on GGP. Why am I being crucified for highlighting the progress of the decline that is stated in the RNS? Please do correct me if I’m wrong. Posters are being called ‘divs’ for stating facts from the RNS..