Member Info for corradus

It was described as previously reported in Newcrest's initial inferred mineral resource estimate from 10 Dec 2020...

"Within the South East Crescent and Breccia region, mineralisation remains open at depth in high grade shoots as demonstrated in previously reported HAD065W2^^ which included 120.7m @ 9.3g/t Au & 0.18% Cu from 1349.3m, including 26.6m @ 34g/t Au & 0.23% Cu from 1384.4m. Growth drilling in calendar year 2021 will focus on the extensions and definition of the identified zones external to the current Inferred Mineral Resource. "

Thanks GGPThruandtru. Appreciate you taking the time to check. Certainly OTT. IMO BB inconsistent approach somewhat undermines my confidence in their estimates...

Thanks GHPThruandtru. HAV figure more understandable now. As you say certainly not consistent. And idea what value was attributed to other tenements this time around? Had a vague recollection it was zero?!

Thanks for the replies. I had assumed (!) the "risk factor" is to account for the possibility that the ultimate deposit size may not be as expected (uncertainty). However if both unrisked estimates were produced using the same approach - EV / resource oz - I don't understand why the ultimate unrisked estimate was only increased by 50% from 44p to 66p when the ultimate resource size increased by 125%... from 5.5Moz to 12.5Moz. So 44p unrisked if ultimately 5.5Moz had transpired previously, and 66p unrisked if 12.5Moz, using a valuation approach that by definition allocates enterprise value per resource oz...? I'll leave it at that as I suspect I'm misunderstanding the approach...

I'm finding the discussion re Berenberg interesting and confusing... hopefully someone can enlighten me. Unfortunately I am not in a position to have had sight of the actual report.

What is confusing me is that they have increased their target SP by 50% - risked and unrisked - and yet their Au Moz estimate has increased by more than 125%... Apologies if this is a naive question.

Quote: “to account for the maiden resource and exploration results that, in our view, suggest a materially larger mineralised system than we had previously envisaged and we now ultimately expect a deposit of 12.5Moz to be delineated based on the current drilling (versus 5.5Moz previously).”

From proactive: "the bank have decided to upgrade their price target on Greatland Gold shares, up by 50% from 22p, to 33p apiece"

Positive, calm and rational interview from GH. Gives some much needed perspective on the RNS today IMO. Reiterates that Hav is currently the underlying store of value for the company.

Good to see some semblance of sanity returning the the SP!!
C

Personally I am happy with the initial MRE released. 4.2Moz Au eq was okay - we had been forewarned this was an initial estimate by GH. The total volume used for the MRE was always going to be a small percentage, given MMRE requirements and the overall scale of the Havieron deposit.
I suspect there were those who may have hoped for (bet on?) higher MRE figures and perhaps bought on that premise, but higher figures will come over time IMO.

GDXJ will be buying - although how much remains to be seen - but this could well be a large purchase.

It would have been great if the SP hadn't dropped (it can be unsettling to see big paper daily losses), but for me this is a long term play. Do your research, believe in that research and have patience are pre-requisites here.

The SP is back where it was at end of last month, and having a quick look at the graphs this looks about right for now to my untrained novice eye.

The derampers are annoying (like wasps around jam - there are other similes...), but I think that goes with where we are currently. Just ignore it.
GLA C

Working off prices...
160Kt Cu = 160,000t x US$7,634.85 / t = US$1,221,576,000
To gold oz:
US$1,221,576,000 ÷ US$1,839.80 / oz = 663,972oz
So Au eq = 3.4 + 0.664 = 4.064Moz
About 4Moz Au eq.

@jdt1990 - good clear post. Thanks.

Here's my "not so clear" quick calcs....

Free float - 95.7% (best current estimate I could get from FT), ~ 3.65bn shares - assumed marginal change - worst case is 4.3% reduction if 100% free float previous (it wasn't) so small imo, say c. 5% reduction max

Share price used
30/11 - 27.6p - resulted in 0.66% allocation
Not sure what figure SP previously used (either 28/8 or 1/9? anyone?), but...
If it was 28/8 - 14.8p = 86% up now - gives 1.2276% new allocation
If it was 1/9 - 15.6p = 77% up now - gives 1.1682% new allocation
Prev allocation 0.66%

Prev investment at 0.66%, 6.6bn fund value = allocation $43.56m

Fund value was 6.6bn, but down 15% to 5.6bn so...
Assume unchanged free float
New investment at 1.1682% (77% increase), 5.6bn alloc 65.4192m +$21m
At 1.2276% (86% increase), 5.6bn alloc 68.7456m +$25m
Margin of error c. 5% lower (max) due to free float change. My estimate.... $20m+ subject to jdt1990s caveats...

Shoot me down if any significant errors!!

@MF11 - dollars or pounds??

27.4p

AM90 - I think that's the rebalance date for the Van Eck fund. I believe the rebalance date for the underlying (?) MVIS index is 27 October??

I think that is correct. Van Eck and MVIS rebalance quarterly (Van Eck may well revalue daily). The point I was trying to make in my other post is that if the GGP SP is 50% higher (say) at the next MVIS rebalance on 27 October compared to the previous one in July then (assuming all other companies unchanged...) the GGP percentage holding for the Van Eck fund will need to increase by 50%... say 0.6% to 0.9%... in December (a slight percentage change, but a large buy nonetheless - the original buy to get 0.6% was big)?? If all the companies in the index have also increased by 50% and there has been no change in the fund size then nothing will change??
I guess it depends on the comparative performance of the SP between the various companies in the index between the MVIS rebalance dates...? Hopefully GGP are better than most (the last 1 year figure for the whole fund was c. 46%).
I'm trying to get a little more clarity around this as I am hopeful that on 27 October GGP SP is significantly higher than in July which I assume will lead to an additional larger Van Eck purchase in December... ?

Dave - thanks for the reply.
My mistake. The figure I quoted was for the UK... As you rightly say the US fund purchase was 127,496,276. So I guess the total share purchase was the 2 combined - 2 separate purchases at the time? The US fund includes 84 holdings whereas the UK one lists 81.

I may have misunderstood how the fund works, but would the amount to be purchased not have been calculated based on the MVIS index weighting calculated in July, and due for review in October? So it would be the price then that is key, rather than any intervening price "spikes"?

I saw the next review date for the MVGDXJTR index is listed as 27 Oct 2020 on the MVIS website - the index tracked by the Van Eck Vectors Junior Gold Miners UCITS ETF, which has a current GGP holding of 0.63% fund value (0.6261% in the index) - 7, 511, 888 GGP shares with a listed value of US$ 2, 295, 782.
Am I right in thinking that once this review is complete and published then the new figures are those that will be used by Van Eck to rebalance their fund in December? Both companies rebalance quarterly.
The GGP share price on 27 July was around 15.2p... now circa 23p with 3 weeks of news to go (!!)... Hopefully we're comparitively ahead of our index peers and the fund has had a net inflow of funds.
Thanks C

@Bebeto - tend to agree with you re GDXJ. Everyone knew it was happening. Didn't really affect the fundamentals of the company. Good to have the ETF involved.

Does anyone recall the date on which the likely inclusion in the index became semi-public (!) knowledge? Maybe a week or so before the actual announcement? Or more? Wanted to check the SP around that time.

Also the (temporary imo) drop in Au price has also not helped the share... c. 5-10%

I was puzzled by the free float figures for GGP too. My reference is normally the FT site - which has similar outstanding and free float figures for De Grey and Highland Gold to those quoted originally by AM90. But the figures on FT for GGP are 3.79bn (outstanding) and 3.55bn (free float)...
Not worried - as others have said it's good news - but I would have liked to have had a better understanding of the numbers tbh. Is there more than one way of calculating free float perhaps??
GLA

5 shares for a quid so 22m x 5 = 110m if still 20p...?

Precious Metals

TGF
The AISC is made up of production AND selling costs per oz (NCM quotes AISC per Au oz sold). If you take a look at the last NCM quarterly figures (March 2020) for Telfer you'll see that the production cost for mining was $697/t and milling $346/t resulting in a final AISC of $1160/oz sold. This was for grades of Au 0.97g/t and Cu 0.17%, with lower recovery rates than predicted for Hav (re H&P). If you treble the Au/Cu grades that results in a reduction of $695/t (production - mining & milling) using grades of Au 2.91g/t and Cu 0.51% (so same byproduct credit per tonne). Gives adjusted AISC of $465/oz sold.
To come up with an AISC that is higher than currently at Telfer (AND using higher grades than Telfer current at 0.97g/t) is misleading imo.
You can remove the credits on the AISC quarterly calcs (note this is not the Cu byproduct credit) and eliminate inventory movements to be more accurate, but you still won't get figures near what you have been quoting if the grades are better (2x or higher) than Telfer. Current underground grade at Telfer is Au 1.85g/t and Cu 0.35%... and they are mining it...

Matt. Yes it's definitely worth a read.
Nice line in the report at the bottom of page 13 (!) (which outlines the four targets at Scallywag - Kraken, Barbossa, Blackbeard, London):
"Expect to drill test the four targets in 2020".