We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
@TT - notes for Coffee with Samso too :-)
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=236
For sure more than a bit of water seeping through rocks but the posts were just reacting to a blatant troll Freddie, have a look through that guy's posts unless his account been shut down now.
The important thing is they seem to be getting on top of it, the lowest of the three aquifers ended up having more water/pressure than assumed once they got closer down to it and started dealing with it. They've dealt with the upper and middle aquifer and no doubt will do the same here. The aquifer isn't something that will derail the project which is what Tatty was intimating.
Morning Freddo, are we shifting for a career change from starring as the protagonist in The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise to Stephen King's IT :-))
Shaun's updates in recent interviews seemed clear, progress has been good and 'ahead of schedule' but GGP need to make updates 'hand in hand' with Newmont despite having their own assumptions on when it will be safe to resume work on the decline - so it seems as if they are getting ahead of the issue.
Currently we've been told the team are still 'doing the maths' i.e. assessing when they have a more definitive hold on when they estimate they will have lowered the pressure enough to resume work on the decline by assessing pump rates etc. Not sure where this leads to any confusion really.
Shaun did also say that the decline team are working on the 'maths' i.e. I assumed trying to tabulate at what remaining volume of water the pressure might be safe again to commence work on the decline? Couldn't be clearer I feel from the interview so I guess we have to wait to see if they have completed the equations and calcs as such in time for Feb to detail when work might recommence on the decline?
IMO the interview with Liam leaves little doubt that there is no foul play at hand from Newmont as such as GGP support the decision... that is unless folk now think GGP are happy fooling their own shareholders and working in tandem with NEM with ulterior motives that are negative towards us, in which case we're definitely in trouble... :-)
The question I feel is if this adds a slight delay onto the production timeline but alternatively I suppose a few months don't matter in a multi decade mine operation and of more focus to me is the DFS/DTM being delivered this year and IMO currently more likely post June after the comprehensive update by NEM is shared. Personally, not expecting a detailed update in Feb as Tom Palmer himself has said that NEM will take a considered approach to optimising the portfolio and with nigh on 20 assets almost I think and perhaps various other pressing issues - a lot to think about but fingers crossed we get something :-)
I've looked before at post GoldCorp activity where NEM conducted optimisation transactions in months 6-9 of a 18 month timeline - so in theory the comms schedule they are planning with larger post acquisition goals in a 24 month window (acquisition completed in Nov '23, 2024 plans shared in Feb '24 and comprehensive update around mid-year) seems in line to their stated desire to follow the same template/process as what was successfully accomplished post GoldCorp deal.
So, perhaps a valid theory that from mid-year (7-8 months into a 24 month plan) they start to initiate optimisation plans and as yet we await confirmation from NEM directly into their plans for Hav/Telfer albeit Shaun was giving strong indications of his belief the JVA committee members from NEM will sign-off the DFS/DTM. Of course, doesn't mean they couldn't in future decide to divest or try buying our stake after this key milestone. Personally - I will retain an open mind at this stage to all outcomes :-)
LOL Snotty - is there ever anything funnier than a dimwit trying to act clever?
Why don't you 'calibrate' the amount of crack in your bloodstream by the level of Special Brew and then directly compare the number of tissues used in the last hour to wipe that nose by the number of articulate, coherent and comprehensible posts in your posting history.
Starts with z...
I think your mummy and daddy (Tymers and IOT) need to get you in bed as well past your usual bedtime but thank you for the entertainment :-)
@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
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
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 :-)
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 :-))