Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. Watch the video here.
Also created some highlights from Don's interview of key points:
Highlights from AIM ON AIR Interview with Don Durrett - 18 OCT 2023
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=818
I think the 200k ounces from Don for GGP is a bit high MH01 from the expected production profile from decline overall of 350-450k ounces, so perhaps 30% of 400k is a good value for GGP calcs :-)
350k = 105,000 for GGP
400k = 120,000 for GGP
450k = 135,000 for GGP
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=662
Bell Potter Conference - 10 Feb 2023
But if we move across to the first slide after the disclaimer, we have the just an orientation around our strategy and there's really three pillars to our strategy which is deliver on an expanded Havieron, we continue to do that and the expectation is that will be moved from two million tons per annum in the pre-feasibility study to three million tons per annum which will take it to around a 400 or 450 000 ounce per annum asset.
Q - Thank you very much, you know you spoke a lot about what's happening at Havieron, you touched on you know potential first production in sort of March 24 I think, you know what does the production ramp up there look like and you know what are your thoughts on achieving commercial production and what.. could you remind us again of sort of the ultimate production rate that's contemplated there?
A - yeah Brad, look so we we're looking at a 400 to 450,000 kind of gold equivalent ounce profile for up for 100% of Havieron, the... when we think about this it'd be first ore in kind of the March or around March 2024 and then we have the ramp up following that
Freddie, be grateful someone well researched on GGP interviewed Don and was able to get some really good insight from him. Don listed almost all obvious red flags himself but also showed some big gaps in fundamental knowledge that Liam did a sterling job to cover but not easy when you'd don't have a producer helping out or someone who is more of a facts geek like a few of us here.
And Don's perception of the management team is fair as Shaun isn't a proven CEO but also plenty of operational skills across the business as Don's wasn't heavily clued up on the entire staffing set-up. Don covers 950 companies, he does not have a granular view of the company as was obvious during the interview.
BUT nor does he need to with his evaluation and investment formula's for a more broad based approach. More so a checklist that works I'd say as he's in GGP very cheap in a pre production play, did you look through the PPSS summary of Lobo Tiggre's annual report I made?
Some good information in there so I'd recommend reading the entire PPSS report, a PPSS entry is what Don's chosen to do with GGP but he does appear to have a 5-8 year timeframe, gave a very good rating for risk at medium as lowest he ever goes is Medium-low and perhaps a longer investment timeframe if GGP delivers on growth. I also recall Liam being honest about his and many biased shareholders shortfalls during the interview so a bit weak to criticise him, read the transcript. One thing Don and perhaps Liam missed pointing out too was pointing out buying in revenue from memory (I should read my own notes lol).
Don had plans to meet Shaun and no doubt will do so in future where he can evaluate him. A fair few of us with corporate experience and exposure to high profile c-suite clients/employers have met Shaun and most seem to have found him to have the right qualities and knowledge base to turn out to be a great CEO. His previous CFO role will cover many important areas of a company focused on growth and the entire team itself... decades of experience and skills of the highest calibre - so you mix that skillset and experience with teamwork - you'll have a great team capable of some huge things :-))
Notes from AIM ON AIR Interview with Don Durrett - 18 OCT 2023
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=817
Today’s guest Don Durrett joins Liam to talk about, Greatland, Havieron, and Gold. Owner of www.goldstockdata.com. Author of How to Invest in Gold & Silver: A Complete Guide with a Focus on Mining Stocks (which is available on Amazon).
Expert on gold and silver mining stocks. A frequent guest on investment podcasts, with a large following on Twitter. Don Durrett is at the front of sharing information on gold and silver miners along with its macro data that has an impact on it. Follow Don here: https://twitter.com/DonDurrett
Interview Link:
https://youtu.be/-5Je0nmFDFo?si=GSyY1L90hu_Us5_E
Notes:
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=817
I don't think Newcrest were shorting us or Newmont is, just being shorted by various parties either as a general sector focus or some smaller private groups of traders who saw potential for massive retrace after stock market bubble burst as we like the likes of eua and arb etc. had a mass retail following that made the perfect targets...
Hi Mh01 - I was looking through this too and also had a quick look through this document: that assists with mine closure guidance.
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Environment/REC-EC-112D.pdf
Section 11, page 19;
11. Financial Provisioning for Closure
As per the Statutory Guidelines for Mine Closure Plans the mine closure plan must include the details of closure
costing methodology, including clearly documented assumptions and uncertainties.
The objective of financial provisioning for closure is to ensure that adequate funds are available at the time of closure
and that the community is not left with an unacceptable liability. To that end, it is essential that the cost of closure be
estimated as early as possible.
DMIRS recognises that providing verifiable closure cost estimates at the early stages of a mine’s life is subject to
many assumptions and unforeseen events. DMIRS expects assumptions to be summarised and ± cost variation to be
provided. This per cent variation should then be refined during operations and decommissioning.
The financial provisioning process and method(s) has to be transparent and verifiable, assumptions and uncertainties
have to be clearly documented, and they have to be based on reasonable, site-specific information and data
throughout the life of the project.
The closure cost estimates need to be regularly reviewed to reflect changing circumstances and levels of risk. This
will ensure that the accuracy of closure costs is refined and improved with time, and will assist with management and
mitigation of high-risk issues.
It should be noted that levies paid into the MRF required under the Mining Rehabilitation Fund Act 2012 and the Mining
Rehabilitation Fund Regulations 2013 are non-refundable and separate from the internal accounting provisions for
closure and rehabilitation and should not be used to offset the costs for rehabilitation. The mine closure plan must
contain a summary of the mine closure costing methodology, assumptions and financial processes to demonstrate
that the proponent has properly considered and fully understood the costs of meeting closure outcomes identified in
the mine closure plan, and made adequate provisions in corporate accounts for these costs.
The process and methodology for calculating the cost estimates must be transparent and verifiable.
Reference to the detailed closure costing methodology must be provided in the plan. Where necessary, DMIRS may
require a fully detailed closure costing report to be submitted for review, and/or an independent audit to be conducted
on the report to certify that the company has adequate provision to finance closure. Where appropriate, the costing
report should include a schedule for financial provision for closure over the life of the operation (ANZMEC/MCA 2000)
Info on MRF:
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Environment/What-is-the-MRF-19522.aspx
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Environment/ENV-MEB-381.pdf
I'd need to check but I assume once the DFS/DTM come through (conservatively expected within H1 2024) and given the funding is sufficient to meet DFS assumptions, then the funds will be released to exercise the work required to get Havieron into production.
I thought so too Panama, It is a fantastic article and I was involved in a twitter thread with Charles where a renowned (albeit rather less vocal character nowadays) known to frequent Town halls knows as 'Rhino' was trolling him about the 5% value :-)
I pointed them to the GGPChat post I created after the 5% outcome and Charles has actually referenced the JVA terms restricting the so called FMV in his article, literally the first writer who has that I recall vs assuming it was true FMV. Shame the likes of John 'Cornball' Cornford can't do the same level of research and Charles really has done a very good job of looking at the various scenarios that might play out in the Paterson now that Newmont have cleared the hurdles to proceed with closing the acquisition.
Newmont moved quickly to meet their stated goals after the GoldCorp deal and had met their synergy and divestment targets within 9 months of the 18 month timeline they had given as I covered last week in a post. They made the divestments in months 6 to 9 from memory. They obviously have a draft plan to be able to state a circa $2bn target BUT I would assume will be gaining the insight of key NCM staff and full access to data etc. as owners before confirming their plans and need to integrate the assets into their own corporate structure too from all aspects such as H&S to financially.
However the sunset clause for the DFS for next April might create some incentive to come to a quicker decision on their plans for Hav/Telfer too, but perhaps a counter argument that if selling both assets perhaps the cost of taking into production since so much of the work already completed might help raise the price tag as a seller.
There are a lot of scenarios and a lack of clarity which may be in place for another 5-6 months if they plan to update and act on Hav/Telfer for their Feb '24 timeline, might be before of course but it is also important to remember that nothing is fixed such as the plan for an MRE by year-end. new events may come to fruition at any time causing GGP's team to be agile and amend any plans. probably best to be open minded and agile too as investors for any who choose to weather this period :-)
Some great industry insights in latest Ernest & Young mining and metals business risks and opportunities survey ranking the 10 biggest risks and opportunities.
Article summarising key findings:
https://www.ey.com/en_gl/mining-metals/risks-opportunities
Link to full report here:
https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/mining-metals/ey-top-10-business-risks-and-opportunities-for-mining-and-metals-in-2024-v3.pdf?download
Some great industry insights in latest Ernest & Young mining and metals business risks and opportunities survey ranking the 10 biggest risks and opportunities. The largest being ESG which as a modern mine we should be well positioned for and secondly securing capital, something we also seem very capable of.
Article summarising key findings:
https://www.ey.com/en_gl/mining-metals/risks-opportunities
Link to full report here:
https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/mining-metals/ey-top-10-business-risks-and-opportunities-for-mining-and-metals-in-2024-v3.pdf?download
Toffers - watch this to understand why JORC compliance is something that GGP having Oz assets and presence is unlikely to be avoiding in any way , no tactical advantage to your theory whatsoever. there are codes/standards around the world that serve the same purpose.
This presentation will also aid the understanding of why there is a variation of conclusions that the same dataset can present and still be compliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgpv-DaiGfg
@CP - Shaun mentioned one being in place for April in JVA in an interview but said 2023 so perhaps meant 2024?
He didn't go into granular details but applying a bit of logic you can assume a sunset clause means that if a DFS hasn't been issued by some date in or by April then it becomes 'due' as per the finer terms in the JVA. Remember it was the same for the 5% Option Exercise, we got details on the framework - not particulars - so perhaps under confidentiality etc.
Leauge-Addict kindly created a transcript as I was in India dealing with my father passing while he was on hols, link below:
https://ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=711
Interview here and listen for a couple of minutes on form the timed link - but the clause is mentioned specifically at 28mins 33secs:
https://youtu.be/B4G95KvbyjM?t=1579
@YNWA91 I agree and that is the issue right now... for both shareholders or prospective investors there isn't anything much to combat the ambiguity and lack of clarity for the Havieron project which is the real driver for attracting investment unless we make another discovery or acquisition. No substantive evidence of any particular scenario so what is a new investor investing into, a JV, buyout by NEM or GGP structuring a deal on what terms for Hav/Telfer?
TBF it isn't GGP's fault that Newmont swooped for Newcrest and that applying common sense they of course would want to review everything before confirming any plans they have for divesting or developing pipeline projects as part of their circa $2bn USD target for portfolio optimisations. Obviously they already have a draft plan looking at their history as I did last week on post GoldCorp transaction activity where they'd hit synergies and optimisation targets within 9 months.
Being the majority partner they have the control on DFS release although appears to be a sunset clause for April (which could be mutually moved I presume) or were the decline to hit the ore body before April, it would be required to continue the development of the stopes etc. from Shaun's comments - so there is a driver for a decision to be made for them with some urgency too IMO.
When it comes to TZM, IMO they will just fund Moz governments settlement in a claim and had probably built that unofficially into their business case for the project. They and the Moz Govt. were well aware of what they were doing and potential implications in a BIT case against Moz Govt.
I sense a settlement will be reached eventually which is why AAG were happy to take the case onboard on the agreed terms after Due Diligence and that TZM will be the ones truly funding the payment behind the scenes.
Toffers - it's an Oz asset, releasing a non JORC compliant MRE doesn't serve any purpose IMO and greatly reduces any potency and weighting the market would give an MRE - you do realise why these kind of standards are required globally and exist?
There was a reason the independent MRE created for the Option Exercise went through the process to make it compliant to the code to aid a positive outcome. Shaun's made it very clear that he is asking NEM to be involved in a peer review and not given any indication it wouldn't be JORC compliant.
What if NEM state they would wish for Shaun to not release an independent MRE and intend to continue the JV but wish to release one in 2024 around a DFS release or around their own annual reporting of resources, which falls around February each year. Can't dismiss a scenario where Shaun may have to play a good partner if a JV is continuing, would really only mean a small further delay and IMO it is clarity on the future for GGP around Hav and a DFS/DTM that are key to a sustained rerate.
The PPSS study really had some great insights so hope folk have taken the time to read the report or the summary I created, hoepfully GGP proves to be north of the general average by some extent due to the quality of the project.
Hi 5x5 - you definitely make a good point about thorough due diligence not being available to PI's bar public data released in results and studies. Some F2F is possible in some projects as the Town Halls in GGP in London every few months. I went to a couple to date and were great in getting more detail on headline information from the CEO directly and clearing up some areas for me, so if possible always a good idea to attend these events for those stocks where you have a good management team in charge.
My playbook as such that I am forming for this sector is that I do think discovery plays are worthwhile for those 10 baggers potential if you invest post discovery in the stronger projects where early indicative signs are good as drilling commences and against other factors such as jurisdiction vs geopolitical risks, financing environment, regional infrastructure which feeds into funding requirements and the management in the company and JV potential or existing partners also need to be researched - as it correlates to still cheap but relatively low risk entries to picking 20 explorers initially with no indication of a discovery.
Also to avoid the Orphan Periods for non producing juniors having experienced GGP and UFO for instance so invest back in during the PPSS seems ideal if you still favour the projects. And of course if they make another discovery you can always jump back in but ideally, take your money out after maiden MRE seems a good idea for most.
As for PPSS - I've been hoping to gain insight on production rerates so was very happy to come across this study , it seems that 90% plus of mines commenced are completed so I think at the stage a project gets to this level you've got a lot of data on the project from studies so a well researched investor could make some good decisions but for lesser gains probably for most projects - balanced against less risk of course. I think you have to also factor in the macro outlooks too and the summary shows it's still possible to lose money so apply common sense and do the homework to build your knowledge and make more informed decisiosn.
But ultimately- you can't escape risk in this sector to make potential high gains so if you're constantly struggling to do so, you may need to look more so at alternative and passive methods of investing in the sector vs individual plays.
Hi SMILLER, that was just a average 100% gain but Lobo as unable to find any correlation linking the cases for the top 5 winners who achieved nearer 750% gains in average in the 124 cases studied. So this PPSS covers the period from Construction Decision to First Pour and 9 out of 10 mines that go into construction are completed vs the high odds on discovery plays.
Here are the basic findings for all 124 cases:
- The whole exercise is aimed at measuring the typical gains for speculation on the transition from exploration to production.
- 91.9% succeed at building their mines (making it from CD to FP).
- 95.2% succeed if we count mines built after a takeover.
- 568.8 days is the average time from CD to FP.
- 97.0% is the average gain from CD to FP.
- 111.0% is the average gain from CD to CP.
- 745.5% is the average gain from CD to FP for the top five cases.
- 20.2% is the average gain during bear markets.
- 132.4% is the average gain during bull markets.
Summary:
- Not all PPSS investments are successful as many have huge issues so an average increase doesn’t mean success is universal
- One thing learned in 2022 is that PPSS plays can be highly vulnerable to cost blowouts and many that the report tracks were making headlines due to major cost increases
- PPSS plays are relatively low risk speculations — but only relatively. They are NOT risk-free.
- Top 5 winners average 745.7% gains and top 5 losers average 70.4% losses so due diligence is still critical
- Over 75% of all PPSS cases yielded some sort of positive gains, but that doesn’t mean that all of these were substantial
gains.
- Of PPSS companies that built their mines, 21.9% failed to yield any positive gain at all
- Some 32.5% yielded negligible or minor gains (less than 20% over almost two years)
- And a good 46.5% yielded only modest gains (less than 40% over almost two years)
- While lower risk than discovery plays - Due Diligence is still paramount.
Try this mate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Oxt25VyWY&t=1465s
hi all, been looking through an annual report from lobo tiggre after watching an interview about his discussing the ppss. obviously of interest for us here as han**** project is almost in this phase and we would hope for a rerate.
for anyone who is interested i've pulled together a summary of the ppss report (link to download report is in the thread in on the ggpchat forum in the 1st post on there), i focused on the gold and silver miner stats for a section of the summary but the complete report does cover industrial minerals as well and the consolidated findings are covered in most of my summary.
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=4786#p4786
interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8oxt25vywy&t=1465s