Member Info for Dip666

Thx for your AFR link too Mark - seems like some analysts very much see Newmont seeing Telfer as non-core if they but NCM.

Newmont FY results Replay also now available - 55 mins in for Newcrest bid and then Q&A follows right after where a few questions are asked here and there:

https://events.q4inc.com/attendee/718711521/guest

Another interesting development with Newcrest and Antipa in regards to their nearology project in Paterson:

ANTIPA REGAINS 100% INTEREST IN HIGH PRIORITY EXPLORATION TARGETS FROM NEWCREST

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02635605-6A1137827?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

Thx Mark - link below should work :-)

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fcompanies%2Fmining%2Fdisappointed-newmont-talks-to-newcrest-over-information-access-20230224-p5cn8s

@CP, the management team matters as much as the geology now, we just managed to avoid a potential snafu with Newcrest during the 5 percent down to the team, the same team who were able to articulate the geological potential in Havieron and the financial side so ably to the banks and Wyloo and also help attract the 3 power players, not something Gervaise could have done.
Part of fending off any low ball bid will come down to being able to articulate the value of GGP ably enough to justify turning it down, the same team who were able to convince the valuation assessor to beat Newcrest will thankfully be in place with the now world-class board to do so.
Of course, some have doubts about Wyloo and the board looking after shareholder interests and that is part of the risk of being an investor, but the team matters more than ever IMO.

Greg, as I said an observation not a critique on the threads direction , simple as that, would have been better termed as interesting rather than amusing, hope that helps clarify:-)

As I stated Greg I found it amusing the thread had turned towards a low ball offer for GGP given it was about the Newmont call. An observation on sentiment Vs criticism, there is a distinction.
And if you are referring to Tymers or Freddo as longstanding contributors, on that we disagree, neve found any value in either of their posts which are mostly disruptive in general including towards myself and others who put a lot of effort in to share our research as they like to term it, ramping or manipulation.

Not criticising anyone as we're all feeling the pain here but is hilarious how a thread about Newmont's results has turned into a low ball offer discussion :-))

All we need now is Time Travelling Tymers telling us how he's also made a killing on [enter any stock on share riser list today] and now looking at buying the island next to Beetham's, where he too will also be able to watch Branson paragliding... and offering to take Freddo with him as his live-in butler.

Just to confirm as Q&A ongoing and Newmont are saying disappointed Newcrest BOD rejected proposal but they are in continued negotiations to take up proposal to review data but not yet confirmed they will.

So the offer to review data is being discussed but not yet confirmed.

Just listening in to Newmont's Q4 results and 2023 guidance presentation and they intend to proceed with approach for Newcrest by reviewing data as offered.

https://events.q4inc.com/attendee/718711521/guest

LOL Tymers... so I am but 'a pawn in your game of chess.'

Truly the words of an honest and straightforward man there, I think you're more on the level of Connect 4 though lol

I'll have to find that pastebin link Jiffy shares from time to time when I have more time with your 'Best Of UKOG' compilation :-))

@Tymers - I was about to joke that you'd accidentally posted ramps meant for the UKOG board and had a hunch to check your posting history and surprise surprise you actually ARE ramping on that board again... and seems some remember your Pumping & Dumping from your 'billions upon billions of gallons of oil' days!

Amazing how many stocks that spike where you then end up having claimed to be invested in - AFTER the event of course :-))

That makes sense Ace, the price tag will narrow the field somewhat into a much smaller group of buyers with actual capability to fund.

Interesting target if true as on the surface without deep research seems a good match following good practice for M&A where a skilled team liek GGP's could improve and increase production profile /revenue and the Lithium potential. Seems a bit early for GGP but hey - never count anything out I guess :-)

Ace, interesting if true as we'd be well positioned to provide the skillsets to enable the doubling of that production profile and the lithium exploration upside would interest Wyloo no doubt, seems like there will might be a few interested parties though according to the articles?

Hi Bablake, of course I meant NCM selling 5% for $85m to GGP as just realised I wrote paying :-)

Also note, it was a non-binding offer from Shaun but the thing is had NCM accepted $85m from Shaun and he had he then been able to secure a funding package for 5% at $85m... what would that have indicated to the market and indeed the independent assessor?

It would have told the market that 5% MUST be worth at least $85m as GGP were able to get banks/funds (who conducted due diligence) to be happy to lend them the money to acquire 5% at that price level, which is why NCM ignored it IMO.

Not much NCM are doing makes sense the last few years and it's lead to them ending up where they are, be interesting to see if their current ploy to start a bidding war is successful... funny thing is if Newmont deign not to offer more and no one else comes forward then they just look like a company lacking leadership and unable to articulate their true value to the market and shareholders - interesting times indeed :-)

Also as for making sense of Newcrest not paying $85m for 5% - why would they define a much higher price than they were planning to put forward in the negotiations to the independent assessor? Luckily too low to win but they probably also had an idea Shaun would go lower than his 'offer'.

They wanted the valuation to be hinged to the PFS, GGP's MRE made it tough fo rthe independent assessor to do this as the MRE was valid as using data within the 'point of time'. NCM's official excuse was they felt better ways to spend $60m vs for 5% more as they'd paid so much less for their existing 70% and wouldn't measure up to their internal Hurdle Rate Returns set out in their fiscal policies... well so they say :-)

Hi Bablake,

Response to 1 /, 2/ & 3/ :-
The wider market didn't care or would be informed about JVA nuances restricting a true FMV (as we saw from much media coverage) so the price determined by the Option Exercise was always going to become a 'price discovery event' we became hinged to unfairly.

Hence Shaun offered a baseline value (not optimal) at $85m for 5% of Havieron to NCM himself telling the market ...THIS is actually a better price level than what will come out of this exercise.

It was a very astute move as was his stating that putting together an independent MRE for the Valmin valuation had made it necessary to share the information publicly with shareholders via RNS as it was a 'material update ' and regulations made this necessary... so we got an updated MRE using the latest data available up to the 'point of time;' used for the exercise.

These actions showed Shaun's, the teams . consultants and his mentors skills vs naivety. My more extended thoughts below including a breakdown of key information from Shaun following conclusion of the exercise:
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=365

Response to 4/ :-
Your guess is as good as mine, we've been told AT THIS TIME in various interviews a compliance cross listing with no fundraise is planned BUT if an opportunity or event makes sense they might consider a fundraise. Leaves a pretty open field of play.

These directors with their kind of wealth no doubt have firms managing their investments so wouldn't have thought an ASX listing is a necessity for their purchasing shares in terms of needing to be in their timezone - but may be desired for tax reasons perhaps?

Don't forget this is a 2 way process guys, PFP have also requested certain conditions be met by AAG before the deal is sealed to ensure a stronger chance of a positive outcome with a case.
Due Diligence periods do tend to slip by mutual agreement where there are complicated matters involved so that hasn't been a big issue with me as we also want to ensure that everything is watertight for our own sakes :-)

@CP - Keep in mind that the decline is a production-ready decline albeit it might be termed officially as an exploration decline, they're building this ready to go, something telling the industry they are more likely to proceed although prudent to never count your chickens until the DFS/DTM is delivered of course.

Would a production ready decline have more commercial worth than an exploration decline? I think so and although slower and more costly initially, won't it decrease overall time into production on delivery of a positive DFS/DTM... often what appears 'slower' is 'faster'. Did you consider that?

They're also using the extra time to publish DFS to consider bulk mining approaches (Bell Potter prez) and some of the drilling planned in 2023 will help inform that it seems. Remember while they develop the infrastructure of the SLOS mine a lot of prep work will be actioned for the next mining front, so another reason they've decided to reassess it seems. Planning now and doing a better job could mean serious cost and time savings overall from SLOS to bulk mining.

Freddie, again you're comparing junior explorers which are massively volatile at the best of times to likes of behemoths as amazon etc. which are less likely to such large swings in their normal cycles, not an apt example at any level. You have to stomach volatility in aim juniors as par for the course Vs an anamoly, or try trading the swings I guess.

Use more apt examples or articulate your points better so you're not misunderstood and no correlation to the point I'm making about Red informing strong opinions with actual knowledge. Understanding the areas I mentioned is important in this sector, much like consumer trends is for Tesco along with a huge focus on reporting and forecasting of revenue etc.

What about mine or your culpability as investors for not taking into account that money left the sector, the general market sentiment etc. You seem unwilling to explore why you stayed invested might have been less ideal considering these areas? I blame myself for not following my usual macro indicators and assuming GGP was more resistant than other peers and having become fascinated with reading up on various areas, I bet nothing is ever your fault :-))

Shaun has ticked off milestones where possible and in his control and saved the company from a cheap takeover to date winning the option exercise, those were the most realistic and ideal scenarios looking at the general macro environment and geopolitical challenges since Ukraine using hindsight and appraising him.

Now moving into production I WILL expect him to generate interest post DTM to help drive the SP if the sector outlook keeps improving as that will dictate my decision on how much I keep invested long term. Of course, focus for now is assessing DFS when published for project feasibility and awaiting the DTM.

@Freddie - not what I was suggesting though was it, RedT has a warped understanding of the decline, permitting and development processes informing some strong opinions, he really does need to do some homework as nothing more dangerous than an uninformed opinion.

You tried to directly compare an explorer/developer with no revenue to amazon and Tesco last week - completely different investment propositions... and being able to understand MRE's and Feasibility studies at a basic level help an investor consider GGP more thoroughly to reduce risk, what do you think the likes of funds and banks utilise these for?

Your money mate - you can choose whatever methods you want to invest in companies - use a Ouija board for all I care :-)