Member Info for Dip666

Try reading the transcripts of previous interviews Culpepper and then tell me tactics haven't been discussed including a release of an MRE.

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'

Just to clarify Shaun's comments regarding the MRE reposting below - might take a while yet and I agree with others that it's more about what increases you see in the categories with higher geological confidence which correlates to commercial value and revenue forecasts than needing it to be over 10MoZ that matters closer to production.

Based from Shaun's comments in the last Q&A it appears they're still working planning on releasing by year end but are going to ask Newmont to peer review once they take over fully as they'd planned to do with Newcrest - and it should be released unless Newmont don't strongly oppose it. Also seems that they're still finalising the draft internally from his response than having gone out to external peer review yet.

Obviously there might be more going on behind the scenes or might occur before it's released (i.e bid or acquisition scenarios) which means it makes sense holding off or perhaps even releasing against Newmont's desires as they did around the Option Exercise.

Otherwise I expect if things stay as they appear, which seems to be potential early 2024 before Newmont express their plans for Hav/Telfer , I'm expecting an MRE update by year end unless GGP see a strong chance of Newmont looking at divesting Hav/Telfer and decide to hold off.

Notes from LSE WEBINAR & Live Q&A - 21 SEPT 2023

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=798

* okay let's give you a simpler question about the independent MRE that you said you were going to going to publish what update can you give on progress and did NCM take up your offer of being involved in the peer review

- so that we continue to work on that technically we will so at the right time once that work is we think in more of a final draft form we would share that with them and who knows that might kind of enter around that transition with the Newmont ownership

- so you this a slightly more complex period than it was in March 2022 when I think we last independently released a MRE

- that said we're committed to getting the work done we continue to walk that forward I'd like to achieve that December quarter timetable that we set for ourselves I might just you know add that you know we will be mindful of you know we value the relationship with Newcrest and Newmont

- it's always been our preference to release Resources and Reserve updates with the partner so if Newmont does come in I think we would want to continue to give them that same opportunity for peer review but that work is being undertaken both internally we'll also get it externally reviewed for confirmation and of course my expectation is our joint venture partner would also want a peer review and we would appreciate and want that to happen

Hi topslicer - if the interview is hosted on YouTube I usually wait for their system to auto create the transcript and strip into a word file and and listen through while formatting and editing on the go, usually doubles the time as the transcript text always contains a bunch of errors... but compared to lots of other programs I've tried (and Liam) Youtube's own are the best to work with by far.

If not YouTube, then there are those I've had to manually create but luckily while not the quickest typist I have a great memory for listening to something for a few minutes and summarising , TBH I'll be less inclined to be doing these once in production as will be more interested in the financials as I would do with a more traditional investment, so my focus will definitely shift - but for now it's all about getting Hav into production and keeping a close eye on what has been a dramatic journey!

I'll detail the process I use at some point including creating the PDF's and share on GGPChat :-))

Hi Peter, YouTube usually also creates the subtitles with the transcript after a while so you can watch/read in tandem :-)

Notes from AIM ON AIR September RNS Update - 06 OCT 2023

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=804

That's right mate, they may not be utilised or be loaned for other reasons.

Are there other reasons to borrow stock?

Beyond short selling, there are several reasons why investors seek to borrow stock. The most prominent reasons are:

Settlement certainty: When an investor borrows a share to avoid a failed delivery of a separate trade.

Market-making: When a broker lends a client’s sell list and borrows the buy list, netting out positions over time to avoid impacting the market.

Collateral: Using borrowed securities such as stocks or bonds as collateral for another trade, such as a swap or other derivatives transaction.

Dividend arbitrage: Lending out a stock to a domestic investor over the dividend record date to avoid foreign investor withholding taxes.

Hi Trippy, Shares on Loan has increased, so not necessarily shorting by an additional 14m.

https://public.ortex.com/understanding-the-mechanics-and-metrics-of-short-selling/#:~:text=Days%20to%20cover%20measures%20how,have%20necessarily%20been%20sold%20short

Shaun Day joins Liam Again for a quick update on the RNS published during September 2023

https://youtu.be/H_pGaMaWOxE?si=SbK-1rH460WxSEPp

I'm sure Shaun and the team have been discussing all scenarios and have a strong idea of a sensible valuation range to pay for both assets or alternatively a sale of Havieron outside the NCM scheme booklet assumptions as have Newmont no doubt and looked into funding capability with Wyloo and others hence his confidence GGP could secure funds by one method or another.

Of course how and for how much with what payment terms will be debatable in its accretive nature for each of us, so I imagine not all would be happy but I'd assume a deal in this climate especially would be given stringent DD before being offered and I would expect an ASX listing and raise to be considered as part of it IMO.

Toffers that really is a silly assertion to make and again you seem to be acting like a P&D merchant? :-)

It is the quarterly Liam does with Shaun so will cover developments of late and questions around those so perhaps a bit more detail on anything in RNS or interviews of late as Liam being invested asks more specific questions.

Not sure it would be wise to put your own value on both assets publicly without a deal confirmed either but he has assured before that he feels GGP could fund a full purchase much to Starbrights chargrin and in previous interview to a question I asked if funds restricted also outlined plan b could entail Wyloo purchasing Telfer type strategies as a backup.

Culpepper I am disappointed as I valued our conversations so much ;-)

Seriously though the market pays attentions to studies and resource estimates and pegs value on those which this deal has not favoured us with up to date analysis of data but of course sentiment rules on AIM is the lesson with GGP for many of us Vs fundamentals.

Sooner Newmont transaction cleared and plans for assets confirmed the better, exploration upside exists but value growth won't be at the pace NCMs 8 plus rigs and stock market by bme provided even for another Hav.

The real opportunity in short term is Hav until we see success elsewhere and hopefully not too far away from seeing the path forward by early next year.

Tymers or Aquas SP targets should be treated as a bit of fun at best ..

Post your calcs again Tymers as I can't find this post or post one of your fabled but lost in space spreadsheets on a platform like MediaFire kid ... if it exists.

Anyone can state a price like 88p valuation out of the air guys like our mate Tymers that Ace is teasing - it means NOTHING unless backed up by some calculations :-)

You can't just back a number because it's high, anyone stating SP valuations should be able to verify them and Tymers has never once been able to share a spreadsheet to do so and won't even state P/E ratio etc. he is using and he wasn't using consolidation as was using 88p after his deramping phase for a few years now.

So let's take a 10/1 consolidation - this leaves him at £8.80 forecast on Aug 23rd 2024.... now 88p pre consolidation I would love too, but let's see the numbers or as useful as waterboy's Pound Shop forecast.

Zak's predictions rarely happen and just pump and dump attempts Toffers from his twitter following, just as harmful as deramping.

Not arguing, just pointing out the irony of your own attempts to push a narrative using a chart prediction Vs Waterboys own Pound Shop attempts at deramping, one and the same really IMO.

Toffers, only a while ago you were pumping Zak Mir's 9.5p TBF despite your last post around the NCM vote.. having paid close attention to Zak's s lot as they have covered a few of my stocks I've come to the conclusion they pump and dump.

We know what is required here and that is clarity on Newmont plan for Hav and Telfer and confirmation of Hav i.e DFS/DTM.

Aim999 - any chance of seeing your comparative research on ASX goldies, not the first time you've mentioned such things without being able to provide any numbers? I remember you being schooled before on trying to display your ASX expertise...

Looked through your so called research on other stocks too - if you can call it that, although I'm sure you have other talents such as trolling on chat boards. So which ID were you using when you made these alleged warnings in the 30's exactly or point to your posting history with dates? You didn't start posting here till Apr 2022 after a 5 year break in your posting - were you in prison or something?

I wonder if you actually bought in at the 30's and now blaming others for your investing choices but playing the 'I told you so' card hoping to get at LTHers you blame for 'ramping you in'.