Member Info for Culpepper

They are in a 10p plus, aren't they?
———
Wyloo are in at 8.2. On warrant execution, they will be in at 9p if nothing else happens before then.

And it is clear that additional funding is probably required in line with the enhanced results - tonnage for one - from the forthcoming study.

Why delay then?

—————

I would not classify it necessarily as a delay, like slippage. The ‘delay’ if you accept a dtm is on the cards, is to make sure the study contains all that may be required to derisk the project and ensure the funding is forthcoming. It is consequent upon the feasibility study.

Whilst we tend to look at the relative immediate, successful companies have far longer timescales. There is, in my opinion, a bigger picture developing around Ggp and Havieron -subsequent upon the Wyloo investment and enhanced board, maybe just at the moment somewhat visionary in our eyes.

And if Wyloo want to exercise more control, they can execute their warrants any time, giving them I think 14% of Ggp. Though I would expect a reason to arrive for that, or they will wait until they are “in the money.” They have plenty of time.

I see no need to argue it particularly. But there is a difference between Wyloo and institutions who may invest. Wyloo is early money to influence the banks, and also it is a strategic investment, unlike investors who are not in the industry.
“When a company invests in another company as a strategic investment, it usually does so in exchange for a share of control over the company. This allows the company to protect its investment, and to shape the direction of the smaller company's business and product lines. Strategic investments may also be made with the understanding that the larger company may express a desire to take over the smaller company at some point in the future, once the small company has proved itself viable and productive.”
Wyloo helped persuade the banks, who have simple profit by interest in mind. And on it goes through successive fund raises.

Amaroq is "fully financed for the next few years" after raising £48mln this summer, he adds.

5% done, but granted, no explanation. They don’t have to.
It’s the study that’s been delayed. In my opinion, different to yours, for both companies benefits, with good reason. It will be checked out by the banks,for example, so the better it is, the easier things become, now and on any future funding. The FS will probably be the basis for future funding to go from well-funded to fully funded on the anticipated increase in tons per year over the last study.
The DTM falls in line after the study. It has to.

Nice little story though. Biswas versus the rest, and trouble in the boardrooms.

Another ‘worry’ being floated. Where’s the ‘bad’ news coming from?

Not up on the price of gold variables, but if the last is true, it’s largely an industrial commodity.

Wiki extract. May give a picture of end users/investors.
Given the huge quantity of gold stored above ground compared to the annual production, the price of gold is mainly affected by changes in sentiment, which affects market supply and demand equally, rather than on changes in annual production.[15] According to the World Gold Council, annual mine production of gold over the last few years has been close to 2,500 tonnes.[16] About 2,000 tonnes goes into jewelry, industrial and dental production, and around 500 tonnes goes to retail investors and exchange-traded gold funds.[16]

I think the point of the old news is that the increasing size was a given, even back then.
It’s the life of mine, and profitability over time scales that the Feasibility Study and Decision to Mine will go to.
And profitability should be very much greater than for developers lacking the existing close infrastructure provided by NCM through Telfer, to the overall benefit of the Joint Venture.

It’s old, and there have been changes to Ggp structure, funding, and all that.
But I think the tone of it is still fairly representative of the Havieron project, and going on to use it as a springboard for other projects.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/952306/greatland-gold-edges-closer-to-a-decision-to-mine-as-the-high-grade-drill-results-continue-to-flow-in-952306.html

Don’t know for sure. But whatever the answer is, I expect the particularly far sighted are ahead of me.

It’s just chit chat, but I don’t think you can ever ‘bottom’ a CEO if they’re any good. A straight one should be far too wily.
They’ll top up the broad plan so far as they’re permitted within market propriety, outside of an RNS. But they won’t mention issues that they’re working round sort of thing. They’ll do what they have to do, and maybe tell you about it later.

When I say borrow against it, I mean it gives security to potential lenders on the continuity of existing or proposed operations paying back capital advanced.

Yes, efficiency and effectiveness throughout the value chain across the whole process, on what you’re mining and selling in a particular time frame, no matter the size of the resource. Key to profitability, and therefore feasibility. and the ‘more feasible’ it becomes the greater and earlier the ability to pay off debt, and fund other projects. Pretty obvious really.
The size of the resource asset goes to life of mine, and very probably the opportunity to borrow against it to fund other opportunities also.

The story is of a big mine. Got used to that. . In due course they’ll mine and sell optimally. So much a year. And the year after, etc.
Getting bigger not cutting it for now. Rossi pointing out next planned on Hav is FS. Maybe that’ll do something for the sp.