Member Info for Dip666

Notes from LSE Town Hall Zoom Q&A - 09 Mar 2023
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=678

10 or even 12-1 sounds good to me, let's get it done and dusted in one cycle. Shaun's stated very good reasons for consolidation around peers on ASX usually listed with 400m and a SP threshold of 20 cents to list on ASX. Consolidation much like the issuance of shares is well abused on AIM by directors in highly speculative and badly managed companies where the purpose isn't to build a sound business.

I consider the reasoning, objectives and potential outcomes of planned corporate actions when deciding how to vote vs an emotional reaction personally. I agree with Jerry, if you've only ever had bad experiences, then it is because you've invested in a series of poor companies unfortunately :-(

As for emotional reaction on a 10% drop in a stock I own at 7p or 70p, that means nothing as it's the amount of actual value of my paper loss/gain that I measure. Owning 'millions' of shares isn't important either, I look at the percentage of the company I own. It goes back to cakes (the size of the cake and number of slices) analogy or perhaps you prefer pizza :-)

Thanks Donald, a task for tomorrow rather than Friday night and thank you for the continued opportunities for face to face engagement with Shaun and of course fellow shareholders through the dramatic chapters this GGP journey continues to create, much appreciated!

HI Bamps, same here and as always appreciate the info. you put together, I forgot to ask if the burger was nice this time as rushed off to the Zoom Q&A.

I felt guilty I get a couple asked in the Zoom interview again, so I didn't ask any in the TH , I know Panama gets a bit jealous Donald prefers my questions to hers and always trying to muscle in lol

The truth is I hacked into Donald's iCloud photo account... let's just say I have some 'leverage'!

@Freddie, come on mate, you seriously can't understand what Panama is saying in that you've got way more information to work with? Think of all the different outcomes like a flowchart and the information gained from yesterday to help you predict more likely outcomes because it might be some are so bad that if you think they are more likely then you might just say - eff that, time to sell- or vice versa, I like that outcome so I'll buy 14,000 more shares :-)

Below is what I felt I have learnt from yesterday as an example and I think it useful personally for my own decision making:

- Shaun is very confident Newmont will end up buying NCM and probably decide to strip Hav/Telfer (Do you?)
- He seems confident he can put together an accretive deal for the assets (Do You?)
- The TopCo format he is considering (Hav under ASX and GGP under AIM) seems highly modelled for an OZ slanted funding framework utilising Wyloo and Oz connections he and the directors can leverage to acquire Hav/Telfer and still retain AIM liquidity and high-risk profile of AIM retail investors who are exploration friendly. ASX does seem a good fit in general for an Australian mine too. Best of both worlds perhaps from his perspective? (What's your conclusion?)
- IMO, he's waiting for Newmont to decide whether to proceed with bid hence a reason he is delaying ASX listing until June/July using the above approach , think they have been planning the ASX listing long enough to have executed in early Q2 personally so he must be awaiting the decision from Newmont to proceed and I reckon if they do he'll proactively approach them about a Hav/Telfer deal from the outset. I'd do that if it were me, just say hey if you want to optimise the portfolio, we'll be happy to help.

So those are MY conclusions I am going to base MY decisions - it is what it is Freddie, the Newmont bid just upended everything and it's a new chessboard in front of us all of a sudden :-)

Just reposting to assist with the accretive vs dilution discussion :-)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion/dilution_analysis

The concept of dilution to pay for wages and running expenses for a junior just drilling away hoping to make a discovery is so different from when you use equity and debt to purchase an asset (or share in) that increases your revenue and has commercial and intrinsic value that you add to your balance sheet.

In the first case your cake stays the same size and ends up in more slices, devaluing your slices in the company.

In the second case, the cake grows in size as you add the intrinsic value from the acquisition despite more slices in the cake and over time the increased revenues and growth optionality from Havieron would be all ours (and perhaps a partner if a JV with Wyloo etc.), further growing the size of the cake.
________________

I think when we have an actual deal to consider with real numbers it will make so much more sense than just the concept. But in theory, if the banks and Wyloo are happy to fund a 30% stake in Havieron (and remember we share 30% of the CAPEX for works required at Hav and Telfer, we're not getting the revenue for free) then why not 100% of Havieron and Telfer?

Telfer is still viable on the ore they are running through and as that ore runs out next year or perhaps continues with additional low grade ore, especially if asset prices support this and they can find other pockets (thanks for pointing that out yesterday Jerry) then it's an even more viable business opportunity for consideration. GGP has all the requisite skills and experience in-house to manage it's own mining operation now, so another important criteria has been met that would influence lenders.

LOL Ace, no I'm not Shaun and look forward to meeting you at a future TH mate :-)

Hopefully LSE release the Zoom hosted Q&A on YouTube so I can strip out the transcript and tidy up while listening through again to share so will keep an eye out ??

Very quick recap of non-broadcast Town Hall – will tidy up when I get time!

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=675

p.s lovely to meet many of you again from the previous TH I attended last September and also lots of new faces, as always - DYOR and MYOD ;-))

As some have pointed out, unless GGP decide they want a JV on Scally then no issue if FROR or not and IMO it really might make sense to combine into Hav JV and get a better all round deal once we've established there is something worth mining. Initially Shaun used to be very open wto this but post funding also more open to developing Scally solo perhaps based on Sept '22 Town Hall. As it stands, pretty sure GGP will just continue to explore for now so not a big deal and Shaun can clear up any confusion tomorrow :-)

Also, fantastic early results but as with the results at BH, a way to go before declaring a discovery and quite a lot of work before knowing if there would be another commercial opportunity, it's taken a while longer than expected to get the results we have at Juri and Scally. As I recall it was easy enough to get into GGP after the HAD05 discovery hole at a low SP , so especially in the current market are we really surprised these and the JURI results haven't generated more interest... :-))

Notes from Proactive Interview re. Scallywag Results - 08 Mar 2023

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=671

@CP - Shaun's interested in developing an asset such as Scally or EG without partners from various interviews and town halls (heard him in person and asked him about EG myself at Sept 2022 TH) although he has mentioned considering integrating scally into the Hav JV for better terms overall. But I do agree, if it makes sense for any reason, nothing wrong with a JV if well structured and beneficial.

I think by intercepting a structure they mean something akin to a fault,fold, dyke etc. and the shear zone a brecciated zone perhaps so very promising, hopefully some of the more geologically informed peeps can explain in more depth.

Hi Gerry - well NCM don't seem to be putting up much of a fight :-)

I don't think there is any collusion though between the two, if anything, the way NCM want the Due Diligence structured is for non exclusivity so they can hopefully attract other bidders to push up the price. Doesn't seem likely though but as I posted yesterday I don't think a large premium required from the 2nd offer to close the deal so a fair chance of our JV partner changing IMO, we'll find out I guess :-)

@Freddo - it is what is now and we're all fed up and although M&A been expected amongst the majors, just our luck it's happened now... that DFS is what we need for a rerate and NCM for some reason won't even share which quarter they will release it? I really can't work out why that helps them with Newmont but NCM BOD acting like their tea's laced with LSD of late... I mean I enjoyed my fair share of psychedelics in my 'yoof' but outside working hours lol

@Red - I'll be the first to agree that a chance of another discovery is low - because those are the general odds on any tenement as exploration is a very inaccurate science. As you say, even with a discovery in hand, it's a hell of a risky journey as we've found out with Havieron where NCM almost grabbed us on the cheap last year. But the actual packages of land we have in and out of the Paterson are generally pretty first rate for POTENTIAL prospectivity and especially for those we hold in the Telfer radius as if we hit on any of those... we have all the advantages Havieron enjoys.

@Red - simplistic approach to tenement selection, there are reasons some tenements are more in demand and require ballots etc. and majors do not throw money around for juniors, the stronger a case in your early exploration work and in fact the more proof you have from successful drilling is how you firstly attract a JV partner and then secure a better deal for yourself. Areas around tenement selection and it's potential commercial worth include:

- Regional and specific prospectivity you may have pinpointed such as our Paterson holdings being along strike from historical work and desk research etc.
- How accessible the tenement is,
- weather complications to keep in mind,
- infrastructure availability nearby and also in general in terms of transport and shipping etc. for future consideration for production viability or development costs
- geopolitical risks,
- market demand for the types of metal or industrial minerals potentially hosted,
- other nearby projects and majors who might be more naturally interested in farm-ins

... and thats just a quick brainstorm while getting a cuppa, plenty more reasons that drive how in demand a tenement might be. You don't just go out and pursue any old tenement, we have some very prospective ground in our portfolio for many of the reasons stated above.

True value comes through success of identifying something of course and surely the reasons we have agreed the deal for Taz assets was clear in terms of focusing attention within Oz and also the potential scale of the assets were not a strategical fit for GGP any more.

Which flavour do you prefer Itsouthere as you've obviously been chewing yours to such a blunt end that you can't write a post that makes any sense lol

And talking of movies, have any of you seen Carltt starring in a movie, what a performance Carl!

I can't believe they gave Tom Hanks the Oscar instead of you in your crowing glory?! It was truly method acting as it's finest, the magnetic screen presence, the ability to communicate so much without a single word, you were truly spectacular, a role of a lifetime... as Wilson the Volleyball in Cast Away lol

Interesting article about Agnico CEO's thoughts about it's presence in Australia and M&A

https://www.mining.com/web/agnico-eagle-ceo-mulls-move-to-go-big-or-get-small-in-australia/?utm_source=Precous_Metals_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MNG-DIGESTS&utm_content=agnico-eagle-ceo-mulls-move-to-go-big-or-get-small-in-australia

Hi Ben, no doubt some exec leadership changes if the deal goes ahead and cutting the fat especially for administrative and bureaucratic roles , they'll probably assign NCM assets into current NEM structure of dealing with different geo's such as AP, America's etc. with some tweaks if required.

NEM's CEO made the point of voicing that they'd look to repeat what they did post Goldcorp acquisition and move quickly to optimise the new larger portfolio, so we'll find out soon enough if a deal gets concluded about plans for Hav/Telfer, still it's all a very long winded process so unless it's NCM looking to offload Hav/Telfer irrepsective of a deal with NEM, it could be next year IF a deal goes ahead.

But always good to be prepared and I'm sure a full war council going on within GGP to ensure they'd be able to fend off a low bid or try and acquire Hav/Telfer if both get put up for sale. I'm sure the Oz government will be concerned from outset about NEM coming in to buyout NCM, so will be interesting to see if they make it tough too.

NEM may not need to pay a huge premium above current bid to be successful, NCM haven't benefited as much as other majors since the sector bottomed out and retraced a bit and have huge capital demands in forthcoming years to fund their planned development projects, a stronger cash balance from a merged entity with Newmont would enable that growth with greater ease.

It is a really well timed approach for many reasons including a weakened NCM BOD etc., fairly strong chance we could be looking at a new JV partner if they proceed to DD IMO. NCM seem unlikely to get the bidding war they want it seems so far. Not ideal having this so close to production perhaps, but that's life for you and if their deal goes ahead it might end up with interesting scenarios as discussed or perhaps a better JV partner than NCM of late...

@SS - agree 100%, 'they' do need to build SH value before being anointed as gods but this will take TIME. Also they did play a part in banks and Wyloo wanting to be part of a funding framework so have some credit against them already TBF. Certainly, Shaun has mentioned being mentored through various challenges to date and the part many team members have played to date.

Shaun's building a multi-disciplinary team and board (in many cases with proven world class pedigrees) for various reasons. His first task besides funding Hav was to tool up to meet the vision of becoming a mining company which remains highly focused on developing and exploring assets to engender fiscally disciplined growth.

Newcrest don't 'need' us in any capacity for Hav although we're now able to add much expertise in the JV committee inc. reviewing and feeding into the mining plan and studies. How much or little we are involved is up to NCM outside the JV t&c's though. There has been a marked difference in the quality of partnership since the Option Exercise, further complicated by the Newmont situ - hard to imagine decades of partnership with NCM currently IMO, need to see relations improve markedly.

The team in conjunction with Wyloo can now identify potential M&A opportunities and manage development of future discoveries we might make outside the JV's with NCM. They'll be able to properly assess and develop opportunities, akin to NEM if they go forward with with a 'limited level' of DD with NCM looking at how they might for instance take an asset being operated by NCM and theoretically increase it's productivity and profitability with their own experience and skills. Perhaps GGP look at near term production opportunities that a current owner is unable to fund or lacking expertise to develop which GGP could acquire.

This team needs to be in place NOW for potential growth to take place i.e that 'platform for growth' - it's basic business strategy. It will take time and effort for the team to generate shareholder value now - we have to understand that. The much touted Northern Star Resources journey wasn't achieved overnight but it was underpinned by a very competent team, so we have the foundation. Growth won't be a constant steady curve up either, it rarely is and it success never guaranteed, as earlier shareholders we carry more risk but hopefully more rewards in the longer term. For now, we need to get going with Havieron to kickstart the hoped for end goals.