Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
Hi 5x5 - for sure another example of a badly worded RNS as is par for the course in investor comms across the market :-)
I think the best approach is wait for clarity and I know Upside who does a great job with the TG group and also has some access with submitting questions to the UFO team has asked if they can clarify this clause, hopefully they respond and we can close this off.
No point arguing amongst ourselves about a badly worded phrase until we hear from UFO team directly :-)
It's worth remembering that Wyloo as Shaun pointed out have no need for cash and want the exposure to our assets and would be a hindrance for a bidder in all probability, especially a low ball attempt :-)
Eye watering IMO has been Shaun's way of describing a valuation offered today that would take a few years for GGP to attain and likely an offer the board would recommend.
There are price points of course that meet an acceptable level to be put to shareholders but that might not be recommended still , back a few years ago in the AGM (2021?) Borelli outlined that it would be incumbent on the company to be able to assess an accurate valuation of GGP/asset to consider against.
We've see that GGP has the capability to do so through the Option Exercise so should this scenario come to fruition we'll have to trust that our highly skilled team would be able to position us as best as possible and we can use our votes accordingly based on our individual opinions on any hypothetical offer :-))
Hi 5x5, just seen this being discussed in TG group and I do think Clause 5c is that if UFO dispose of the project and within that period of 60 months the new owner makes a positive DTM then the performance payment is required.
Best to gain clarity from the company really by contacting them in these sceanrio's.
I invested after the discovery hole for Hav so it is why I am here... if we end up selling the project then I'll be taking the same path as Shaun and I suspect many of the power players we've attracted who came here to build a mining company not manage an explorer and exit unless we've had another large discovery to benefit from the speculation curve on the LC... paying good attention on the exit part this time to avoid an Orphan Period :-)
Not really interested in explorers without a strong opportunity to capitalise on something and just 'potential'... these chat boards are full of folk sat on heavy losses for years or having lost money from previous explorers running out of cash or selling premium projects for peanuts due to lack of ability to fund development and no JV so a 'white knight' pounced and took it off their hands.
The best returns for shareholders IMO are JV or sole ownership into production, a sale to me is a quicker but by far less profitable outcome for us pre-production, but I am sure some would be happy with a takeover and that quicker payday.
@CP - After taking a unexpected tirade from someone I like and have briefly met in person and whom I didn't want to respond in anger in deference to their age, you took the brunt instead when responding to your aspersion my posts were unhelpful in the MRE thread , so I apologise and did not mean to imply your opinion doesn't matter - never a good excuse for being rude :-)
Well what if the decline hitting the ore body is the point at which a DFS is required by way of a clause in the JVA to ensure neither party holds up the project or some calendar date?
Certainly Shaun has intimated there is a sunset for the DFS being published and also stated that a DTM would follow shortly within weeks.
And as we know during the DTM process should one party fail to vote for the project to be green lit the other can purchase their share at FMV... with the party that chose not to consider the project 'feasible' for some reason in a negotiating position that they started off stating a project wasn't feasible to proceed with.
You are a funny one lofty, always the worst interpretation with you?
As I just remarked on TG having had time to read properly, when you look at the key reasons Newmont chose Newcrest, well Havieron fits those to a tee outside initial tier 1 status, plenty of compelling reasons to retain Havieron too, really will depend on whether long term outlook Vs short term ROI in meeting that 2bn target win out, so I'm keeping open minded on how this plays out for us.
Excerpt:
Better operating mines. A better pipeline of projects. More assets located in the world’s best (and least risky) place. And better exposure to copper, the commodity that will underpin the energy transition.
Thanks SaS- full article here :-)
https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/the-aussie-behind-year-s-biggest-deal-bets-on-quality-not-quantity-20230515-p5d8fy
Am I Freddie you idiot, learn to read dimwit and refer to my 8:06am post as I said in that post too and I also evidenced why I considered him amongst those assuming the MRE as a significant catalyst, I mean how thick are you exactly?! You seem to be fixated on me as much as Hydro of late lol
@antigua sure the data is fed into a model but you can then use varying values and methodologies to create an MRE, use different assumptions and techniques so if for example you want to play good partners you stick with say a more conservative report the partner would reflect were they creating the MRE and might be willing to sign off in a peer review or if you are fending off a bid you could stretch the numbers within reason to gain less conservative outcomes but still within guidance for JORC compliance. Hence there not being a 'final draft' yet.
Some thought going into those calculations I sense by waiting for Newmont to take over and see if they want tompwer review and perhaps get some indication of their intentions if not discussed already as some think. Just a theory of course as valid or not as anyone else but only reasons why we're not already going out to external peer review IMO
Looking forward to Liam's interview with Don, will be interesting to see how his ilk analyse stocks such as GGP and why it now meets his criteria vs previous interactions a few of us have had with him last year and he has the opinion that they are more likely to bid for the remainder of Hav than divest so also interesting as his opinion seems to go against the majority or Shaun's own thoughts on most likely scenario, should be a great interview and exciting opportunity for Liam :-)
@Tig - 'Publish the true MRE and the SP will respond significantly' was posted by you a while back but let's agree 'significantly' is unquantified so could be 1p or could be 10p but again no offence was intended but was I incorrect in my assertion that you are amongst those that think the MRE will be a meaningful catalyst?
Perhaps you can see why I might have thought so? Nothing wrong in that opinion, I just happen to disagree and IMO until Newmont confirm plans for both assets an MRE won't give a sustained rise but do agree one appears likely in Q4 at some point. I don't feel I was rude in expressing an alternative view to you or anyone else.
My post of 8.06am should clarify we're not actually at odds per se, more so I am suggesting the MRE is going to take time to complete as of yet and that I suspect the methodology adapted to calculate the resource will be based on Newmont's desire or not to be involved in a peer review and what plans GGP think they might have for Hav/Telfer and IMO I support this approach.
I would argue besides dealing with that weirdo Freddie who started throwing claims of being a manipulator at me, my posts in this thread have avoided personal attacks and been focused on the topic to hand and been detailed and well structured opinions in the spirit of debate.
@Tig no offence intended and with all due respect length of time investing doesn't correlate to success and I'm old enough to have had plenty of experience in certain fields that you have much less knowledge of, so hardly a child ;-)
Point taken about your thoughts on the MRE not being a share catalyst but read some of the posts in this thread with a calmer demeanor and perhaps be willing to take onboard other opinions too, you've become completely intractable on this topic and again, apologies as no offence was intended.
CP, there are a lot of folk who have filtered you so I suspect plenty more who find your posts less useful than mine and you've shown little working knowledge of business strategy so I don't expect much insight from you but you post away... unlike you I am not going to judge the worthiness of your posts.
But apply some logic, we are most likely about to gain a new majority partner in our one near production project so go and review the excerpts in this thread and clear enough Shaun is going to start off on the right foot and wait for them to takeover and offer them a peer review opportunity before completing the MRE and releasing to market to try and engender a positive relationship from day 1.
Clear as day :-))
Funny things is when you look at this thread you see the usual idiots like Dobbs and Freddie not arguing eloquently about their opinion but making accusations about the motives of other posters as usual.
I haven't said I disagree with an MRE being released within the stated Q4 period but there are valid reasons to consider the approach taken with the methodology applied in calculations of resource and IMO why GGP seem to be waiting for Newmont to become new owners and whether they want to be involved in a peer review.
I also pointed out that it's going to take a while yet as an external peer review and jorc submission still to be completed. And if Newmont take up the offer to peer review a joint MRE will be more meaningful and impactful.
Also that it's not the overall number but the individual categories in the MRE which are of higher commercial value that will matter this close to production and which will impact the DFS. Those that understand how you use drill data and look closely at this data can make an informed opinion where there has been enough drilling or not to add to the previous MREs using the metrics and methodology applied to date too.
Fact is it's not the likes of Dobbs and Freddie2 who give up personal time to share information that helps understand GGP or general things such as MREs you can use on any mining investment is it? Yet they spend all their time accusing those who do of being manipulative when anyone can use that information to make their own opinions with a bit of effort...
Funny that CP as I'm sure I've seen you use excerpts of transcripts to help make your own points in the past, or maybe I imagined you using meaningless blurb, surprised you watch any of then on that basis...
Majority owners in a business hold the upper hand and so we saw NCM exercise that when they turned rather hostile around the Option Exercise so we saw the other side of the pro's of the JV.
Despite this it was a TACTICALLY MINDED INDEPENDENT MRE that ensured a good outcome from a weak position.
The team we have now is even stronger - I would assume they have the right approach now unless as some opine Shaun has joined the dark side and going to shaft us.
It's very apparent that Tig and a few others have a strong opinion that the MRE will be a huge catalyst to the SP and I think being measured about the expectations both of the content and the effect on SP would be wise. How much of the SP rise on the last MRE have we retained and why has our SP dropped since outside the external factors such as market and sector sentiment?
The uncertainty of what Newmont will do with the project and the delays caused in the DFS/DTM have had a negative impact too and until the transaction is closed and the path forward clear then it will probably be a a challenging period until all that cleared up.
I'm of the opinion a more tactical approach of when the MRE should be released aligned to how Newmont looks likely to proceed with plans for Hav/Telfer as Shaun is doing is indeed the right approach and when we've got the brainpower and decades of experience that we have in the team then I suspect if they think it's the right reason then it is likely to be so.
The interview was clear enough IF you choose to believe Shaun is being truthful.
- The MRE is being completed and planned by year-end
- As of that interview it was NOT a final draft and it still requires peer review and JORC approval to occur so wil take some time still
- You can go more or less conservative in building an MRE and IMO waiting a while for NEM's potential plans may be a reason for a more measured approach and why still in 'draft'
- GGP is going to offer NEM an opportunity to peer review once they have taken over the reins
- Given we now have a new partner in all likelihood some thought needs to go into this partnership and Shaun stated they would prefer to remain in alignment where possible, a jointly released MRE will have far more validity than an independent MRE from a minority owner, NCM didn't use ours in the Scheme Booklet for instance
@Freddie2 - so your opposing argument is I'm a groupie, nice debate stalker and so glad i didn't bother checking in since yesterday so avoided wasting time with you. Stick to posting in 2 lines as all your simple brain can manage you simpleton lol
Shaun started in early 2021 and his appointment was made for the very reason of bringing Hav into production, you literally invested around then with your pathetic and childish posts from day 1 - so even you should have worked this out by now... or are you even more stupid than we all thought? I mean I didn't think that was possible you weirdo :-)
How many times do I have to remind you of everything Peanut Brain Freddo, go and read my posting history instead of boring everyone - you got the memory of a goldfish or something?
After I did my research into the process and valuation methods (including clarifying the process overview in RNS by contacting GGP and feeding back the reply) I stated that it would be impossible to pin down a value for PI's without understanding the exact restrictions imposed on the so called FMV exercise Shaun warned us all about, all the data to hand and a decade or so experience in building valuations but it was definitely going to be a very conservative number after having studied valuation methodologies and the Khartamagai report and understanding the vast disparities in acceptable valuations for exploration projects.
In fact I broke the Khartamagai down into a summary and synopsis and collated loads of information to help others understand everything. At least through the work some of us did, folk had a proper understanding of what was going on and to expect a very conservative value if they wanted to do more than spout claims of inside knowledge on forums all day.
Freddie, I'm just stating the case that in MY opinion the MRE won't have an optimal effect because the main drag on the SP seems to be the uncertainty around Newmont' s plans for the two assets so if that isn't cleared up when the MRE is released, it probably won't be that much of a catalyst right now. I also make the point in an earlier post that its not the overall MRE number but how much of that resource is more defined that adds commercial value in a near production asset.
Get that peanut of a brain thinking for a minute about what has been dragging the sentiment down and why it has occurred. An MRE isn't going to solve that issue IMO, I may well be wrong but just expressing an opinion on this and also when I think the optimal time would be to release an MRE based on different scenarios. A sustained and large rise is only coming from a production rerate IMO where related to Havieron.
Why don't you try articulating some reasoned opinions than making pithy little posts accusing others of being manipulative constantly. Idiotic behaviour like yours are why most no longer bother with this board. If you disagree then put forward the case for an MRE to be released ASAP, argue with the specific points I made with your own.
@tig - I do understand your POV but at this juncture and until Newmont share their plans for Hav/Telfer, I wouldn't hinge too much on SP boosting up greatly post MRE if the former hasn't been clarified IMO. Other comments made in the Q&A suggest to me that the DFS sunset might well be the decline hitting the ore body vs a calendar date as Shaun said you'd expect the mine plan to have been agreed to commence the next phase of work required to develop the stopes etc.
And the DFS will also initiate the DTM process within a few weeks from what I gather from Shaun's interviews - so the closer the decline gets I suspect the closer we are to Newmont needing to make a decision on Hav/Telfer irrespective of their stated Feb 20204 timeline.
@YNWA91 - I do think if Shaun is very certain of Newmont divesting then offering a Peer Review is very clever as you'd end up working in tandem to help build an idea of potential commercial value in any future acquisition scenario. MRE's and feasibility studies from majors tend to be more conservative than an explorer would release. So, it would be to our favour as a buyer IMO and NEM might well be happy to quickly meet a large chunk of their $2bn optimisation target through a quick deal. Think of NCM's scheme booklet being composed more so to promote the benefits of the NEM deal than being an accurate reflection of Havieron which was bundled up with Telfer.
Valuations and MRE's are composed of hypothetical assumptions so you get a wide range of 'correct' assumptions and conclusions in terms of resource estimates and presumed valuations that can conform to JORC and VALMIN codes. Any MRE we release with Newmont's stamp of approval currently would likely involve more conservative assumptions as befits a corporation leading to a more conservative commercial value you can negotiate within.
If a strong likelihood of us as having to fend off a bid, perhaps we would do better going into negotiations without having published what would be a more conservative MRE on the other hand as the new MRE would underpin the range you could negotiate in plus of course some upside on what might be uncovered from further drilling in future.
In Shaun's words - ' so this a slightly more complex period than it was in March 2022 when I think we last independently released a MRE'