Member Info for Dip666

@Mucus - did you really state the following my snotty nosed friend?

"... a company of less than 20 employees with zero experience of mining? "

Whist GGP as a company hasn't become a producer yet... and indeed when you think of the Hav/Telfer Project will actually be piggy backing Newmont anyway as part owners with an experienced workforce in hand.

But... go and check the sum of the parts of those 'employees' and tell yourself if the combined experience in that team couldn't say in theory manage the workforce and operations at Telfer and Havieron in a hypothetical scenario of being sole owners or indeed a much much bigger corporation in the years ahaed with multiple assets growing the team as needed.

Then after you've done this very basic research, wipe that snotty little nose and learn to pay attention to facts you silly silly little boy.

JV's like any business arrangement have pro's and con's dafty duck... and the project is probably too big to attempt without a major and based on your logic no one would ever have set up a business. Ownership is ownership and that 30% will need to be paid for unless the company becomes vulnerable. For sure we have seen the con's of a JV here of course too with Newcrest imploding, offering themselves up as a feast and now the transaction and resultant planned optimisation causing delays with Newmont publishing a DFS.

But the outcome has not been decided so we'll see how the chessboard is laid out by Newmont. They haven't done anything hostile to date to GGP. They promised their shareholders updates in Feb and June on optimisation plans so following their own schedule and they didn't try and stop GGP from releasing an MRE just 2 months before they plan an update. Zero hostility to date.

There is a clause to ensure a DFS/DTM process is completed before commercial mining can proceed and Shaun seems confident they will want to approve the DTM. If they don't then it opens up the process whereby GGP might acquire sole ownership and GGP seem to have the capability to achieve this with their current partners.

Pretty evident you don't have any kind of professional background and one of these fantasist traders that never made a bad trade in their life, stop trying to pretend you have any knowledge, you can barely string a coherent sentence together :-)

Notes from AIM ON-AIR QUARTERLY REVIEW - 30 JAN 2024

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=883

It's the usual quarterly review Shaun has with Liam :-)

Totally understandable that the lack of a DFS is concerning some and of course some think the LCA is being used as an excuse and also been debating this on TG and my thoughts are that:

I don't think the LCA is why the DFS ETA has become less specific from Shaun or that alone. My current opinion is he hasn't had a firm commitment to when Newmont plan to complete and release the DFS due more so to their ongoing exercise to finalise portfolio optimisation and decide what they intend to do about Hav & Telfer.

TBF it is understandable from their perspective and they have given specific timelines in general to the market for 2024 optimisation plans to be shared in Feb and then after a wider review to issue detailed guidance in June and fits into their GoldCorp acquisition history where they went on to execute plans in months 6 to 9 of an estimated 18 month timeframe to the current 24 month timeframe for NCM acquisition.

IMO his lack of a specific timeframe of late is because he's not in a position to broadcast an ETA with definitive conviction to the market - or could just be him being careful to not set expectations given the aforementioned mate so until NEM and or GGP start using specific timeframe again, it is as it is for now.

Newmont guidance post Newcrest acquistion:

- $500m in annual synergies

- to meet >$2bn in portfolio optimisations in 24 months.

For Goldcorp acquisition they had clearly stated two goals within 18 months of:

- $365m in annual synergies

- $1-1.5bn in optimisations

- they optimised their portfolio during months 6 to 9 after closing the Goldcorp deal

So based on the above Newmont perhaps looking to make primary moves from months 8 to 12 of 24 month window post Newcrest acquisition which completed in Nov 2023.

Notes from Proactive Interview re HAVIERON QUARTERLY UPDATE - 25 Jan 2024

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=882

*get in touch with Newmont I meant @ITS

https://www.newmont.com/about-us/contact-us/default.aspx

Direct details to someone specific for IR on that page, he does respond (if you're capable of penning a sensible email), be sure to feedback any information you gain :-))

@ITS - not following you in that a decent response wasn't given?

Seems fairly clear enough that Newmont observed cracking and that they are still mining and stockpiling at Telfer for now without processing the ore - but there hasn't been a spill and that they plan to repair and rectify within 6 weeks. He also states that the fact the new owners Newmont are checking and overhauling the facility will be positive for it's long term duration i.e when Havieron starts processing ore at Telfer.

What more were you expecting? Perhaps get in touch with Telfer who own the facility if you want more info. Easy enough to make contact with Investor relations and from experience from fellow TG posters you do tend to get a reply often.

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=878

Excerpt from Transcript:

*So going back to GGP as a whole you know what do you see in 2024 as both catalysts and what do you see that could cause you a headwind, obviously the elephant in the room in terms of headwind is how all of this merger situation plays itself out for you guys, so you know give us an idea of both of those things?

- well look, as one of things I did want to raise I think people some people following the media will have an interest in this you've seen at Telfer that there was an issue with their tailing facility there

- so that means that they're continuing to mine but they're actually stockpiling and not processing right now and I have had a huge number of people ask me well what does that mean for Havieron?

- well it doesn't really mean anything you we… this is a Telfer asset, it's to the account of Newmont, they're a global entity of you know great capacity and they’ve made it very clear publicly that they will that they will make sure that that's corrected to a very high standard

- and just to be clear it's just some observed cracking… that there hasn't been a spill or anything but they're an incredibly prudent and measured and thoughtful organisation

- so I think that's something that people probably would be interested to hear about and I think that being resolved in you know say the next six weeks really I think will give everyone a lot of comfort

- and to be honest you know giving the facility a bit of an overview and a bit of an overhaul is probably really positive for its long term duration

Notes from Sunday Roast Podcast - 21 Jan 2024

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=878

Proactive Interview

https://youtu.be/T7IsxceG7rw?si=Te7a5MEIMURer-79

Thx mate :-))

Youtube link:

https://youtu.be/xMwoihirF2A?t=2869

Damn that filer and I meant 'transform them from not into a junior' :-))

all good points hh :-)

i expect han**** to still be a very feasible project and therefore investable when we see the dfs and no reason an iron ore project in the pilbara can't obtain funding so i do think the production rerate is a good opportunity especially for those looking to enter at this stage but i suspect the more astute waiting for dfs, fid and dtm hence current slump alongside external factors dragging such stocks down.

i only started investing in sector seriously in late 2019 and my developing 'playbook' moving forward is to enter discoveries after a decent discovery is confirmed considering various geo and non geo factors and exit at a near apex of the discovery hype phase of lassonde curve post maiden mre etc.. a good way to minimise some of the risk but enjoy plenty of potential gains, there is usually time to build a decent stake post discovery imo as have watched a few projects now to confirm this.

a playbook used by many investors albeit one where you need more investment funds to make great returns vs buying at early exploration stages vs your waiting 5 years on a company wide focus and buying in very early stage. i prefer to look at singular projects and be more active from experience and learning curve gained since 2019 to avoid becoming the dumb money stuck in orphan phase for years basically :-)

also, imo best to ignore any nearology or other earlier stage projects by the same company especially if no current revenue stream and then other opportunities in the sector are in pre-production plays such as ggp/ufo which many of us are invested in since 2020. jump into a junior just before they have a project going into production to transform them into a junior after the orphan phase.

having looked at the ppss report by lobo tiggre you can essentially wait until near production past the major financing and developmental hurdles and still enjoy a healthy return minus much of the volatility and having money stuck for years. just split up the predicted production timeline into 3 or 4 phases and pick the last phase. time will tell but certainly seems better than sitting through orphan periods hoping other projects or initial hype being maintained retain interest in the company - seems to be a major mistake looking across many exploration companies with potentially feasible projects imo.

developing a playbook and disciplined approach for each sector i invest in has served me well albeit i do see the approach of having a basket of aim juniors and 5 year timeline having its appeal too - exploration is very very difficult and an element of much luck alongside the science required having spent much time reading up on the geo aspects since 2019 - part of the appeal i guess and my interest in science certainly has me hooked on this sector :-)

Excuse lack of capital's - I forgot to spell Han**** in a way the filter they use didn't kick in

hi hh - agree on the missed deadlines, delays and share price for aim juniors in this sector however... plenty of managerial, corporate and consultancy experience and in some fronts since bill left they appear to be very unprofessional outside what i term acceptable. do i feel my interests are in any way a concern since rod and troy and the answer is a definite negative :-)

unlikely i'll consider a long term position here currently past a production rerate, i need to see a stable team with proven proven records of delivery in building a company against a stated long term vision vs short term self interested types jumping in and out quickly and some progress on other projects.

ufo has very much become your standard aim fare imo so not worthy for long term investment and more mercurial approach - things can change - but we'll need to see a personnel change with the right people to convince me. poor and/or 'inaccurate' comms is always a concern in any aim company and a bit of a red flag usually of either a lack of progress or other issues and shows imo disregard for your normal tier of shareholders who can't just demand an update.

a combo of management and good assets is what i like to see in growth investments - it's easy enough for majors to pick up good assets cheap with poor management with our without their collusion. i have a policy about getting in very cheap with growth prospects and not averaging up and over the years has served me well with healthy returns without overexposure alongside a research based focus into the products/services/sector and staff.

thankfully i still feel very confident of a profit in a cheap sale scenario thanks to that policy here but disappointing, a heck of a lot of potential here but until we see a committed and stable team in place albeit i don't see any issues with getting han**** operational from this level with current staff. the question for me is past that point... what will convince me to stay invested? your standard aim fare is not for long term positions so we need to be more than that :-))

Thanks Ben :-)

I'm pretty sure given that Shaun himself has used ETA's past April for the DFS that there is no longer a need for NEM to publish before then personally, alongside the fact that some of us have emailed GGP/Shaun and not had a response around questions about the sunset clause. Personally I have a open 50/50 expectation on whether NEM retain or divest Havieron - feels very open to me now.

If retaining, they may attempt to try and put in at least open offer behind the scenes - but if so I suspect won't push too hard knowing that Wyloo can muddy any attempts for a cheap price - but you've got to try at least perhaps but their own shareholders perhaps more focused on ROI than more M&A I imagine presently. While we have a great team, truth is they don't NEED us as partners, GGP just happen to have been the junior that made the discovery finally and then doggedly stuck around instead of divesting and put in a place a team looking to transform into a mid-tier at the very least.

But as Mark says, shareholders and analysts want to know ASAP about NEM's plans for their portfolio of assets so if not Feb for their 2024 related plans announcement, I'm sure we'll know by their stated June timeline for the wider more substantive update for the overall optimisation. So in reality not too far away but a year of much change due politically, financially and otherwise so I am expecting a lot of surprises across the board with everything in or out of the Stockmarket.

HI Ben, hard to answer without knowing if there is one still in place and whether it was moved/removed by mutual agreement :-)

IMO if by mutual agreement I can only assume it is part of the being a good partner plus the need to revise the mining plan to I again have to assume decide between future selective or bulk mining in Phase 2 of Havieron.

Also, you can hardly blame a new owner for wanting to have their input into the mining plan given they are majority owners and the leading gold miner globally... the timelines have shifted since the PFS too due to both takeover and the usual development challenges.

Not sure you should just pick a fight proactively with a major at our stage of a business either and given the situation with Havieron project... so I agree that it seems best to see how things play out and what Newmont decide to do by Feb or mid-year for Shaun to then put whichever appropriate action plan into gear.

Like it or not - it is Newmont's move first before GGP can act :-)

Hi Ben,

the sunset clause for a DFS being required by April '24 was being discussed on TG yesterday too. As no one has been able to gain clarity directly from GGP via email etc. I am for now assuming that the sunset clause has been either removed or moved towards June as in interviews of late Shaun has used more loose timeframes around June 2024 for the DFS delivery.

I was abroad last April so didn't take onboard the comments made by Shaun in his quarterly update with Liam last April but had a listen/read yesterday (thanks to L-A for the transcript** on GGPChat too). Added a link* below to the reply made by Shaun to Liam about there being a sunset clause for delivery of a FS before DTM.

He does mention this could be mutually changed including the sequence of events etc. so very likely due to FS being moved into later this year that the original sunset clause was removed or date amended IMO. Also Shaun states April 2023 but this was clarified to be a mistake and he meant April 2024.

*Timed link below to interview around 28 mins in:

https://youtu.be/B4G95KvbyjM?t=1678

**Transcript and excerpt:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=712

Turning to the definitive feasibility study which might have been your first element, that continues to be something that we would like at the earliest point. Obviously Newcrest originally signaled that would be available in the December quarter of 2022. I think they did the same for Red Chris.

Neither Red Chris nor Havieron have been delivered to the market to date. I don't think the Havieron one is imminent and I could only speculate on what's happening with Red Chris but I think we do have pretty good visibility and for obvious reasons I think Newcrest is distracted around that Newmont engagement and the Newmont due diligence on Newcrest, so even though it would be lovely to say that the JV will push that out by June I suspect events have overtaken such that that will be a document pushed out from there, but right now I think the focus of Newcrest is understandably going to be the takeover by Newmont and then I guess we kind of reset the parameters again.

Then typically the way the JVA was done, to answer the third part of your question, is the decision to mine is made shortly after delivery of that feasibility study. The parties can decide collectively that they want to do that in a different sequence but as we presently stand here Greatland would feel strongly that the feasibility study needs to be delivered for that decision and that decision needs to be made prior to the start of mining and I think also in the JVA there's a reference to an April 2023 (NOTE: meant 2024) Sunset date so that puts a long stop date on it but one would like to to see that on the back of this takeover process with Newmont.

Https://money.tmx.com/quote/RMR/news/8094039054161321/Rome_Resources_Announces_Amendment_of_Loan_Agreement_and_TSXV_Conditional_Acceptance

Interesting albeit older article on Stockpedia about broker recommendations inc. some stats on performance :-)

https://www.stockopedia.com/blog/can-you-beat-the-market-using-broker-buy-recommendations-146421/