Member Info for Dip666

That was interesting, thanks MH01, I'm definitely one who agrees with Tobbo and Middlekoop that post discovery hole is a great entry for these plays but also interesting to see furtehr confirmation of the pre production potential. Middlekoop mentioned 100-300% rerate in his view in an interview but also favours the post discovery hole entires for risk/reward balance.

Lobo's updated PPSS data 24m, 25 secs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Oxt25VyWY&t=1465s

LOBO

Pre-production Sweet Spot is available no, pre-production sweet spot (formerly known in my past life as the 'Golden

Runway' is basically the time between when a Explorer becomes a producer, and this doesn't count when somebody already has multiple mine builds a new one. It's not any mine build it's that change from literally pouring money into holes in the ground when you're drilling to getting money out of a big hole in the ground when you're Mining.

And if you think of it that way of course there must be a revaluation and my claim to fame in the industry is that as far as I know I'm the first one to actually measure that and it turned out that the gains in that period are much larger than people had appreciated. On the average of about a double, and you know we just did a new round of research with several new examples in the database and the numbers changed a little bit but roughly the same. It's a very robust finding and given how few examples of this there are every year you know just a handful um I don't know that we got them all but the the sampling the the database is quite complete.I'm not I'm not like sampling one percent and hoping it's representative of the world, I mean I I think we've got most of these in there so the numbers are real.

***continued

The clarity that will lead to a rerate is surely coming from only one source - NEWMONT - it's what happens when you're the minority partner against all the many benefits the JV and telfer infrastructure provides. It's not an updated MRE from the minority JV partner that is going to fuel a SUSTAINED interest in GGP to help recovery but clarity on Newmont's plans for Hav/Telfer, the resultant implications for GGP and then the final outcome from that for GGP.

As investors we can have varying opinions on whether a tactical approach is required for the MRE as they are useful for investors to understand the potential economic value of a deposit BUT closer to production the viability of a mining project begins to be the primary focus to secure funding and define investability. I would think the team we have in place are better judges than most of us? If not, then we're in trouble already.

An MRE won't protect a junior from a cheap takeover if it doesn't have a solid and defined path to production with funding. That only ends up with a 'white knight' taking their stake or project away at a discount and so many examples abound of this past and in near present.

Insto's and large investors want to know WHAT they're investing into surely and the funding we have agreed is contingent on a defined scenario within a JV. What they need to know is what will they be throwing large amounts of funds into? A JV or buyout of GGP or GGP looking to fund a purchase of both assets and what will that entail exactly? Right now, it's not clear whatever assumptions some have here that Newmont are divesting both assets, it's not enough to entice interest from the big boys and a larger MRE isn't going to answer this.

The strategy has been set in place for the MRE, anyone choosing to post frequently thinking it will force GGP to release one before the schedule set is free to do so but it won't force the MRE to come any sooner.

- The MRE is being completed and pegged for release in Q4 at present

- GGP is going to offer Newmont an opportunity to peer review once they have taken over the reins and a final draft has been prepared to present to them

- As of the last interview the MRE was discussed in a fortnight ago, it was NOT a final draft and still requires peer review and then all other activities to enable JORC compliance, so it may take some time to complete yet whether Newmont decide to peer review

- A jointly released MRE will have far more meaningful impact than one that Newmont doesn't acknowledge much as Newcrest chose to do with the last independent MRE

- GGP's market perception of value still seems closely aligned to the Option Exercise outcome value ($360m for 30% which is around 6p) and I think a DFS from Newmont not an independent MRE not approved by Newmont will best justify a higher valuation.

Wish folk would read articles first and whether positive or negative check the writer is well researched... In this case a big fat NO :-)

Ironic Tymer's posts:

"Freddie for your own good stop drinking so much, it pains us to witness someone on the downward spiral. Shout if you need help fella!"

"Acechaser. What do you call Rich? 5 million? 10 million ? 25 million? As this is not Rich. You , your family and friends health and happiness is Rich, this is only money"

And yet obviously posting after a few shandies and making fun of folk who don't perhaps earn much.

Much like your mysterious 'calcs' for your 88p target - meaningless drivel lol

P.s I think you're taking things a bit too personally Toffers, we all have differing opinions on various topics especially when all we have to go on is statements and presentation slides stating an overarching strategy vs a defined plan.

Ultimately Newmont will decide whether/what they divest or not and may well go against the majority of expectations here or elsewhere, I'd keep an open mind at this stage :-)

Newmont are likely to reduce their portfolio of assets somewhat after such a large acquisition as they did post Goldcorp, and of course part of the reason for justifying the transaction in the first place was assumed synergies from buying NCM's assets and integration into existing portfolio. The pre-stated goals and objectives in place now may be revised over the next 24 months too and aren't set in stone, more so guidelines to set expectations for shareholders but they dop have a record of meeting their stated objectives within a year with Goldcorp.

Industry journalists, commentators and analysts have their opinions (some more informed than others) but ultimately it will be Newmont who confirm their plans, below are three divestments made since the Goldcorp deal closed in Q2 2019 after which they had set a target for an estimated $365 million in expected annual pre-tax synergies and divest between $1-$1.5 billion USD of assets over two years to optimise gold production of six to seven million ounces annually.

***Sourced from their wiki entry***

Super Pit gold mine: Newmont sold its 50 percent stake in Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines to Northern Star Resources for $800 million in January 2020.

- https://www.mining.com/newmont-completes-kcgm-stake-sale-updates-outlook/

Continental Gold: Newmont sold its 19.9 percent equity stake and convertible bond in Continental Gold Inc. for $260 million on March 5, 2020.

- https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200305005765/en/

Red Lake Mine: Newmont completed sale of Red Lake mine for $375 million on March 31, 2020.

- https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200331005866/en/

Good to see some interest being picked up in the stock, he has a decent public profile and GGP currently has very little noise around it . Had a couple of debates with Don in the past with the always entertaining Empty Boots and he saw the lack of control in JV as a concern TBF and in some ways he was right as we saw things play out of late but at this price point he see's value it appears.

He also seems to have reassessed the management team which he seemed unaware of having been expanded with likes of Gaines and Barnaba initially and portfolio inc. Havieron for longer term prospects. Initially he didn't see much beyond our stake in Havieron and even there didn't seem to understand or appreciate the lower cost AISC, development costs, rapid payback period to FCF and organic growth potential from being able to mine other zones.

Liam is interviewing him next week too so will be insightful to get an idea of what besides the above now fits his investment checkboxes and how he thinks the future plays out as when I broached the subject of industry outlook generally prophesying a divestment of Telfer/Hav he replied - 'I doubt Newmont divests such a quality project. That doesn't make sense to me. They bought Newcrest for Australian production. I would reverse that thought and say that Newmont wants to acquire all of Havieron.'

@Summit, when I asked about a potential plan B in a LSE hosted webinar if funds were tight for both assets Shaun did suggest Wyloo could assist with Hav funding and purchase Telfer themselves so there are plenty of variables for those doubting GGP's capability of purchasing both assets.

I am not convinced anything has been agreed loftmonkey and a plan set out with GGP by Newmont, but I feel we have the team to react and make the best out of any decision Newmont makes on both assets.

Newmont have no reason to build a bad relationship with GGP when they can achieve quicker resolution with plans besides a JV by working out a deal.

All you do is moan about stuff and argue about others opinions, never posted any research or a well considered opinion about any topic. Decide whether you want to sell or hold and set a plan, just your indecisiveness making you attack everyone else like those other immature idiots who have ruined the board.

In terms of potential future dilution, only reason I see any in short term would be to enable an accretive deal to be structured for Hav/Telfer via sole or shared ownership with Wyloo perhaps if the figures don't work for sole ownership.

Wyloo, HSBC, ING, ANG and any one else who might get involved in a hypothetical deal for Telfer/Havieron are going to conduct thorough Due Diligence before getting involved and GGP hardly lack financial or M&A expertise in the team.

And that alongside any potential ASX listing would be presented for consideration to shareholders and we can use our votes as we see fit. Likes of IOT, Plode, loftmonkey, Dobbs like to take out their dissatisfaction at the SP and dislike of Shaun on fellow investors by proclaiming nightmare scenarios and insults. We all have folk in our life who when unhappy lash out at others, or perhaps wisely - shove them out.

Just for reference from NCM Market release on 10th, vote tomorrow and court hearing next Tuesday:

https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2023-10/231010_Notice%20of%20Second%20Court%20Hearing%20-%20Market%20Release.pdf

Notice of Second Court Hearing

Newcrest Mining Limited (ASX, TSX, PNGX: NCM) refers to the proposed acquisition of Newcrest by Newmont Overseas

Holdings Pty Ltd, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Newmont Corporation, by way of a scheme of arrangement

(Scheme).

Subject to Newcrest Shareholders approving the Scheme by the requisite majorities at the Scheme Meeting to be held

on Friday, 13 October 2023, the Court hearing to approve the Scheme (Second Court Hearing) will take place at 10.15am

on Tuesday, 17 October 2023 in the Federal Court of Australia at 305 William Street, Melbourne VIC 3000.

Newcrest Shareholders have the right to appear and be heard at the Second Court Hearing and may oppose the approval

of the Scheme at the Second Court Hearing.

If you wish to oppose approval of the Scheme by the Court at the Second Court Hearing, you must file and serve on

Newcrest a notice of appearance, in the prescribed form, together with any affidavit on which you wish to rely at the

hearing. The notice of appearance and affidavit must be served on Newcrest at its address for service at least 1 day

before the Second Court Hearing.

Yep newcrest tomorrow, (perhaps late evening for us in UK time?) and certainly not expecting any issues in deal being voted through personally... and with that corporate action completed along with a court hearing I think too next week we just need to wait for Newmont to take over and set their stall up.

And once they do, up to Shaun and co. to bring us the best outcome :-)

Hi ace, I did cover my butt with the if that's still their position as might be some tactical public posturing and corporate strategies less fixed than a Newmont :-)

But the other factors remain of a prospective buyer either embraces GGP, or bids for our 30% if they want sole ownership and of course knows plenty of capability for GGP with Wyloo etc. to bid against them and very likely to do so... might be easier prospects out there for them perhaps?

I am not discounting anything after all of the drama in last few years, I don't get too fixated on anything now, newmont will set the board out and then up to GGP to make the best of it.

Seems fairly evident to me Summit, NCM were definitely putting forward a valuation that was >30% less in the Option Exercise (this had been increased from 20% disparity by mutual agreement) which is why it went to an independent assesment of a 3rd party picking the one closest to FMV (not actual FMV but closest).

I have a strong understanding of how NCM went about it through studying valuation methods by hinging the foundation on the PFS and using minimal upside from their approach and justification of the data up to cut off point and it would have still been compliant to the Valmin Code as I'm often reminding, these codes are not manuals but sets of guidance on how to build your estimates and conclusions.

It's very clear why GGP created an independent MRE, kept it in alignment with NCM metrics and then pushed a valuation within the strictures of the JVA terms around the Option Exercise to me. But I did the groundwork to get there vs just spouting whatever comes into my head on chat forums and bear in mind our winning submission of $60m was not a true FMV either - it was just the price that was attainable using the rules of the exercise constrained by such things as conservative price decks that it was clear Shaun was less than enthused about the former exec team having agreed too.

@Summit - in hindsight very likely they were hoping that by not purchasing the 5% GGP would struggle to fund their ongoing share of development costs into production Summit. Then they'd no doubt have offered a low valuation to take GGP stake of the project off their hands before they ran out of cash.

Didn't work though did it as using the PFS and their own MRE they were able to structure a deal to enable GGP capability (to be confirmed on DFS publication) into production.

Evolution and Northern Star have said publicly at Diggers that they're not interested so if still their position, then that's 2 serious contenders locally out of the picture. Anyone bidding are also going to have to consider having GGP as a JV partner or approach us too if they desire sole ownership and that GGP hold last right of refusal so just need to match their final bid.

Shaun stated I believe in latest interviews that he intends to ensure NEM come to appreciate GGP as a credible counter party be it as a JV partner or as a potential purchaser of their 70% stake. We do have a lot of pull in the BOD who no doubt will exercise their influence in getting some attention to the situation too from NEM if required.

People can keep asking about the MRE daily but the team won't be pressurised from releasing it ASAP as the position is now very clear from Shaun's latest comms that a final draft is being offered to NEM for peer review once they are fully in charge. So, it's probably going to take a while to publish yet irrespective of whether NEM take up the offer as GGP will also need to submit the final draft for external peer review and follow the rest of the process for JORC approval.

Because they'll be invited for a Peer Review as an MRE that is approved and reviewed by them will lend much weight to it and ensure closer alignment to a future release from them or their own used in the DFS more closely.

Plenty of external persons who'll be involved in the MRE with technical and peer reviews such as SRK again perhaps LP, read up on the process - much the same way GGP as partners are given drafts to feedback into studies from NCM currently.

Look at all the partners used last time from an excerpy from q LSE webinar last july:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=358

- because previously I’ve identified and talked about that people should have confidence in our approach but now I can probably just touch on that briefly so we came out with the updated resource we had Stuart Masters who actually sits on the JORC committee co-signed that as our confident person ,

- we had SRK consulting come in and endorse as a second peer review in terms of the reserves

- a similar process where we had EnTech come in and revisit the optimizations of that mine plan, had SRK come in endorse and again it was second peer review

- that information could then be fed into SRK to think about an overall technical report, overall understanding of the exploration opportunity this information could be fed into PWC for a very structured and comprehensive approach to a formal valuation (NOTE: for the 5% Option Exercise)| built up on supported data overlaying that with the corporate advisor to make sure we understood it commercially

- and then we used another group which included Nev Power some of you might know was head of you know 50 billion Fortescue to come in and help quarterback that with me in terms of making sure we thought through the technical and commercial overlay

NEM may well drag their feet during a peer review if they have less than friendly intentions but IF there is a reason to get an MRE out quickly and not play nice partners they also can't stop GGP from doing so. Any more than NCM could with the Option Exercise.

Therefore not an issue IMO, although of course we would hope the new partnership is a close one.

Shaun's signposted the kind of increase we might expect based on current CAGR and I'm expecting the same kind of metrics/methodology to be applied as previous MRE's unless a compelling reason to not do so.

Starbright, what are you expecting in the mining plan then as Bamps says? Flesh out your scenarios a bit than these loose implications without any backing, what signs have you seen to indicate your scenario?

I'm expecting 3mtpa production profile as signposted since the PFS (which had a threshold of +/- 25%) and Shaun's comms doesn't suggest any change of mining method, you really think he's that in the dark when the team have been involved with the DFS and had drafts to provide input on? More production means more revenue too to counterbalance costs and should help ease any increase in costs since the PFS, we're starting from a good base of profitability after all.

So the biggest unknown to me is how much AISC might have increased as I do expect an increase given inflation having cooled down now but things haven't got cheaper but of course a lot of factors such as asset price forecasts used that are unknowns to try and predict the DFS too closely with our lack of proximity to the project as shareholders.

But we know that is something the industry is dealing with globally, there are optimisations that are being integrated into plans and studies to minimise these and Newcrest/Newmont have been mining through all kinds of economic cycles and like all corporations have long term policies in place to control costs due to the nature of their business. I think we'll maintain a lower industry AISC as costs have increased for everyone so we'll maintain our relative competitive advantage as such as a lower cost mining operation - IMO of course and DYOR.

Older thread on GGPChat considering what counter measures might be in place:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=579

Ha, sry MFU I'd started my post and then took a call so didn't see you'd added here too when I pressed post message!

Link to the post :-)

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7117736217982509056/