Member Info for Dip666

Good to see the market study finally completed but also time now to hire someone/s to help secure a deal either with existing prospects or define and pursue new targets that the report should help identify and adopt a more successful approach utilising the study findings.

I recall considering bringing in a consultant/s was also considered in the RNS that informed us of the study and indeed although there was a cost, having someone secure the Pioche deal worked out well as a deal with commission is better than no deal... they don't seem to have the requisite skills in-house for business development having watched them since the mining permit was granted - so need to bring these in-house by changing the staff structure or outsource.

The next couple of years will be when these cement mix companies start securing supply chains and increasing use of pozz after testing and evaluation - so time is of the essence now to secure clients before competition increases IMO.

Useful whitepaper though Toffers that explains the process well - will add to the research info in folder - so good job on that :-)

Read it properly though as the paper itself explains that without studies a rule of thumb approach is used which is very minimal, so essentially we need up to date MRE's and the DFS to attract a half decent price as rule of thumb type valuations are minimal top say the least but teh PFS and MRE's so out fo date they won't help much. Ideally should a sle come to transpire we'll be best placed to have DFS published too.

A sale at this point in time or even with an MRE is not desirable for a high bid outcome.

@Toffers - that PDF is just a very very brief overview of the methodologies applied -read through the stuff in link below this to get a proper understanding and also the various links provided in past to understanding MRE's.

You can't assume an educated outcome from having done no homework... learn how a valuation works in reality and a more realistic outlook will follow I am certain.

I'm sure a natural student like your good self can provide a dissertation by end of next week :-))

*Valmin Code Info:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=132

- A YouTube presentation with great information on both the Code and application of it, worth watching the full hour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odc0Y0ppI1E

- Link to download some presentation slides that are a good reference to get an overview of the Valmin Code and a bit on the 'Reasonable Test' towards the end, those particular slides are weighted towards one, not all three of the valuation approaches contained within the Valmin Code.

https://www.csaglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MGEI-2016_The-VALMIN-Code_Ivy-Chen_October_2016.pdf

- Some files I have collated, you can download the Valmin Code and related docs referred to in the guidance material plus a Valuation example conducted by SRK. The Kharmagtai valuation was commissioned and completed within two months.

- The folder also contains both a summary and a synopsis I have pulled together from the SRK document to understand how the code was applied in this instance by SRK.

- The overall valuation is well over 100 pages long, so quite a lengthy read and the Summary and Synopsis can be used to understand the key information and methodology used as oppose to reading the entire valuation.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/uv8jaum5kycrr/-+FMV+Valuation

*Links to assist with understanding MRE's:

- https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=127

- https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=670

- https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=718

@SB/CP you can get a sense of what might be being planned from the names being registered and I think it makes sense to separate projects/assets as such under different entities under an Oz TopCo.

Not just for divestment reasons either but JV's/Farm-in's, funding, admin and a host of other reasons it makes sense to do so. Also in the far future if focus ever goes outside Oz, you can better set up assets separately taking into account local requirements easier in terms of regulatory and legal aspects.

Dobbs - a previous post below by you:

***********************************

Too many are happy to sit by, say FA and not make him accountable for the value of the company. UK retail investors have every reason to be extremely concerned and not fear intimidating ridicule from back slapping sycophants.

***********************************

Well now you have your chance, you can tell him to his face and/or submit some strong questions to the webinar Q&A. I'm sure even you can manage to ask them politely and maturely enough to have them considered?

Plenty here who've not only spent the time and money to go to London (in working hours for some of us) AND asked him some hard questions to his face in the formal or informal TH. Attend one before you presume you know what happens in one.

Right now all you are is a angry little fool spending time arguing on the web with other shareholders, how's that going to tell it as it is to Shaun?

If you really have something to say and a meaningful amount of your capital invested here which it must be given your anger unless you have other reasons for focusing only on negativity - DO something about your concerns rather than snivelling and crying on this site. Some have to book a day off work to attend so hardly doing so lightly.

Like others I assume NCM/NEM vetted their respective and in some cases mutual major shareholders before agreeing to a deal to assess the potential for pushing it through. You invest in companies like NEM/NCM as a PI, you're very much at the whim of the insto's of course.

Why didn't we see major NCM shareholders kicking off at a lack of resource updates and outstanding feasibility studies - because of the above I think in hindsight. The ones who matter to NCM to secure enough votes have already agreed and in some cases almost a transfer of ownership as they also own stakes in NEM. As with any valuation it had a certain point in time so updating and analysing new data until complete just muddies the waters I suppose until the sale completes, although in our case the data is old old!

I do feel the addition of factors such as GGP's SP volatility, lack of broker coverage and the Option Exercise outcome of all things which was hindered by T&C's in JVA very much outside anything conforming to a straightforward valuation was somewhat astounding in assessing the valuation of Havieron - but there it is in black and white in their booklet whether we like it or not and GGP's RNS pointed out the nature of the conclusions.

It does show how it's these official documents such as MRE's and valuations where data to a set point in time/cut-off vs up to date data that mostly influence perception of price in commercial terms - which is why Shaun needs to be very cognisant of when we choose to create and release our own MRE's which by themselves for a junior JV partner to be doing so or indeed capable of is itself very much a rare event.

More so when we might be either a buyer or defending a bid in some potential scenario's if NEM choose to not pursue the JV as it is. I'm wondering how this month plays out and what is included around an ASX listing and if we see an MRE before any potential deal in which case I'll suspect might be early 2024 before we might get a hypothetical deal to buy both assets as no benefit in issuing an MRE if one is imminent and helping push up the price tag hypothetically.

I do feel a strong case for NEM divesting both assets as a feasible scenario but perhaps too early to be discussing a deal with GGP or much besides preliminary chats as NEM won't have ownership until November-ish. I suspect if they have Hav/Telfer on the divestment list they'll execute early on in the 2 year period they've assigned for optimisation being that they have a very interested buyer already in place.

Https://twitter.com/shaun_day_/status/1699797292742815753?s=52&t=9tPVdRVtoo-n1kpzs8QOlQ

As SaS says - should more funds be required there is the option of looking at the current banks HSBC, ING and ANZ who have already been flexible in agreeing to delay GGP paying charges to have a loan in place due to the delayed DFS so seems like a good relationship. Wyloo of course I suspect will be more than happy to help too to secure the project.

Again, I'm not ruling out a potential raise on an ASX listing and perhaps IF one is conducted it might be related to Havieron funding if been some very large change in the plan leading to more costs or indeed inflation affected more than that they had arranged the buffer for - but perhaps could also be linked to a deal for sole ownership of Telfer/Hav or other plans.

The stated plan by Shaun was to execute prospectus and application before Q4 - so if still planned - not long to wait now.

The original point I made to SB stands - GGP can't say they're 'fully funded' without DFS published and Banks evaluating it along with any other final checks and balances to authorise the loan fully ...and SB should know this given his stated background irrespective of any other factors.

@starbright - he can't use the phrase 'fully funded' until there is a DFS - it is as simple as that and the excerpt says that as much in that they can't confirm until the study is finalised. So, do you agree he can't use the phrase fully funded until a DFS is published or not? Let's try and stick to my original point than trying to shift away from it...

I'm not sure what breadcrumbs he's been laying out bar responding to a speculative press article on which we can all make our own assumptions?

Yes, he didn't categorically state that there will definitely not be a raise but he didn't suggest IF there was that it would be for Havieron in particular. I'm keeping open to the possibility that there might be and it might be for various reasons if so, all more or less viable based on our individual theories and I have no intention of deciding how I vote on any expected GM/proposals until I see what I am voting for in detail.

Obviously there have been inflationary pressures since the PFS - but part of the delay has been ongoing optimisation studies, for now inflation is abating too and generally all corporations have policies and strategies in place inc. long term contracts they can also revise to work through these - both Newcrest and Newmont are world leaders in the industry - I think they'll cope.

So I do expect there might be slightly higher costs but I think they'll be minimal based on above and perhaps if a higher POG used than in PFS then even less so. We'll know when we see the DFS but it seems fairly certain to me that the production profile will be circa 3mtpa as the maximum for the single decline being built with passing bays etc. so there should have been enough expertise in the team we have to predict the outcomes and secure enough funds or as Shaun says - 'well positioned'.

Link here:

https://youtu.be/5ApPF55jj-w?t=3943

Game of Overrated vs Underrated.

@Starbright - How can Shaun state categorically that he is 'fully funded' for Havieron until there is a DFS published to compare the agreed funding too? You should know that of all people if your claims on your background are true - so your post seems a bit disingenuous or misleading to say the least.

What he has said is that the funding was agreed with the expected production profile of circa 3mtpa and resultant costs for the DFS not the 2mtpa PFS. He can't legally state 'fully funded' until the DFS is actually published by Newmont - but has said in past he is confident etc.

I've posted various transcript excerpts before for you with Shaun explaining this and CP has posted the RNS excerpt - this is as close as he can get to saying 'fully funded' until the DFS is published.

Now he hasn't categorically stated there might not be a placing so we shouldn't discount one, but hopefully we'll know by end of month and if there is one it will be for a deal of some kind that is widely considered accretive as I think we all know at this price point a general raise for miscellaneous funds for insto entries not going to go down well.

The plan for Q3 is a Geological review and internal Scoping Study and perhaps now analysing the desk research findings using methodologies from recent lithium discoveries to build some kind of detailed drill and exploration plan to be announced before October?

Also perhaps using the term 'internal' as Scoping Study won't be released publicly?

They plan to:

- conduct field trips and surveys until Q3 2024

- re-assay old cores for Lithium and Tantalum from early Q1 2024 to end of Q2)

- conduct ground EM surveys (and Down Hole EM and Shaft survey at E.Hills ) and Fine Fraction soil sampling from mid Q4 to end of Q2 2024, during which they'll also assay prospective cores

- Then from Q3 2024 looking at a strategic partnering process

Yep - the plan is to get the prospectus lodged and the ASX application process started before October, so we might not be listing until late Q4 or early Q1 2024 possibly dependent on time taken to complete if this plan is followed.

You can apply for a waiver of the 20 cents ASX threshold for listing or Shaun might choose to consolidate shares given his previous statements that ASX peers tend to have around 400m shares in issue to meet this requirement.

Due to the above options, I wouldn't associate the plan to commence the listing application process by end of month to be due to unreported hits at Scallywag etc. which Shaun thinks might takes the SP over the 20 cents threshold (approx. 11p) - although of course I hope we do :-))

Here's my personal understanding of what current situation is for GGP to try and keep an even head amongst all the understandable angst during a very frustrating period reposted again as thanks to disruptors spamming threads, useful posts keep getting removed (which is why I use a copy/paste app :-)

*Current plan before Q4:

- RNS to present Restructure of Company planned for an ASX listing to be voted on in a GM

- Hold the GM and if resolutions passed then;

- Lodge ASX Prospectus

- Apply for an ASX listing (Cross Listing seems likely so far where AIM remains the primary listing) within the 7 mandatory days of lodging the Prospectus (Usual turnaround 6-8 weeks if an IPO included once a prospectus lodged)

- ASX listing MIGHT include consolidation if a waiver for 20c not given or perhaps just as a chosen strategy to try and stay in line with ASX peers who tend to have 100's of millions not billions of shares issued

- Reasons given for ASX listing are that it should trigger mandatory purchases as well as increase II ownership to help stabilise and increase demand for GGP shares

- ASX listing may include a raise but Shaun has stated any raise most likely to be around some kind of accretive deal IF considered in previous interviews

- If we don't see the above take place, I personally suspect something is going on in background affecting these plans around Hav/Telfer perhaps being divested early etc.

*Options around Havieron/Telfer:

-Stick to current plan if Newmont continue to proceed with Newcrest's plans - to date we see all work continuing on the decline and infrastructure

- If NEM decide to bid for our stake then you assume try to achieve an optimal price or resist the attempt completely and the teams ability to navigate the 5% Option Exercise and create their own MRE gives me confidence we are in good hands if tis scenario comes to light

- If NEM decide to divest the majority of industry opinion suggests they would also divest Telfer and in this case the plan seems to be to try and acquire both assets for sole ownership.

- I asked Shaun in a previous LSE webinar what if we couldn't afford both assets and Shaun opined a plan B might be for Wyloo to purchase Telfer themselves and assist us with sole ownership of Havieron.

@Toffers - of course you won't respond - because you can't as you don't really know what you're talking about. At least we didn't get a bunch of web links which you seem to think implies you know something. Not how it works, try replying with counterpoints to the opinions expressed in reply to your repetitive and empty posts.

*Dip you can't tell me that Newmont don't have up to date figures. If they do have them, then they should be shared, it's a JV, and also, they are price sensitive information. You can't just sit on them.

- You're confusing 'data' with a report where you analyse data to present findings and conclusions, so yes I assume there is a legal requirement to release drill assays once back from the labs... but regular MRE's?

- As for 'up to date' figures... there isn't a uniform manual of how you interpret drill data so you only get absolutes by punching data into models. those 'models' need to have assumptions entered into them and these assumptions will vary from one team/specialist to the other - you REALLY need to go and do some homework.

- You could use the same team of specialists and tell them go and create two MRE's with one being as conservative as possible and the other to squeeze out as much as they can in terms of potential resource/reserves and they can both be JORC compliant with varying conclusions due to the different methodologies employed

- JORC and VALMIN codes are sets of guiding principles not manuals for resource and value estimations, can you not get your head around this?

*So if they do have them, why isn't Shaun threatening legal proceedings unless the same are handed over to us?

- We have access to all of the data as it comes back from the labs and our own updated model no doubt since the team grew and we created a prior independent MRE, Shaun has decided to use our team to create an MRE, do you really expect him to sue NCM to 'create an MRE'?

- Again, you seem to be under the impression that drill data leads into some pre-set equation where there is a fixed updated resource... for someone who says they have a background in social sciences you just come across as completely naive and uneducated in simple logic, maths and mental capacity to understand anything slightly complex.

- Every Ore Body is unique and look at the complex nature of havieron's different zones and the fact that some of the extra time being employed in DFS is to look at the longer term mining plan using all the data to hand as they'll be trying to set things up for future bulk mining while developing and operating the starter SLOS mine.

Do some 'DYOR' yourself and try and build some informed opinions about MRE's and drill data - then you might be able to 'respond' in future to replies to your at times very misleading or ignorant posts:

- https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=127

- https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=670

- https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=718

Hi schlemiel, John 'Cornball' Cornford's inferior articles are well known here and elsewhere, a few of us have broken down articles of his for major discrepancies already (check GGPChat). He writes fluff pieces for the dozen readers that site attracts and known as Lurker5 on ADVFN where he enjoys trolling the boards too inc. GGP in particular.

He's inferring that the DFS will have a far higher AISC I assume from mining industry costs, well that's partly what the delay was for to look at optimisation studies and inflationary pressures have abated somewhat plus the usual policies and controls the likes of NCM/NEM have in place as huge corporations well versed in industry and economic cycles.

What everyone needs to see will come in an RNS and NOT an Interview first I would have thought and will then be followed by interviews and a town hall before any potential GM I would suggest to help articulate the restructuring plans and questions around the ASX listing and prospectus perhaps.

Try and apply some logic for once based on what we've been told to date or been able to work out.

Newmont have said they'll inform 'the market' of their plans in Feb next year so makes sense to presume early 2024 is the more likely timeframe for when we get direction from them on portfolio optimisation and the resultant reaction from GGP - unless a hypothetical deal for Hav/Telfer is agreed beforehand IF they plan to divest ASAP.

@NP - I said 'I don't recall him' suggesting this but feel free to go through his posts as his account still exists and find some examples where he does and prove your point inc. times and dates so can be verified.

Should be easy enough if true so do some research to prove your point.

But the rest of my post still stands if you are able to find examples - why would anyone listen to another poster about timing sells and buys? No one should be investing if they rely on posters on any forum to tell them what to do, sharing opinions and research and having debates is one thing, investing advice is another from anonymous posters.

Anyone doing so should be taking some accountability for their own decisions.

I remember PG stating he was sitting on HIS hands when regularly asked what his plans were ...

What I don't recall is him suggesting we should all do the same. And why would anyone listen if he had? People finding and sharing research and opinions about fundementals doesn't make them experts in calling share price movements.

Or anyone regrets not selling or buying at a high average, sadly the person responsible is staring at you in the mirror.

@Cp - bit of an inane comment, was I comparing the company releasing an RNS with investors collaborating and sharing their own efforts? Some posters input is obviously missed when they stop posting here, would yours be?

What do these 'efforts' entail, everything from some using their varying professional backgrounds in certain areas to help others understand aforesaid RNS's or financial matters in the annual accounts or JV's/Farm-In's, help explain terminology or outline potential scenarios that may result from more open-ended situations which have yet to conclude, breakdown MRE's and Feasibility studies, watch drilling activity using sat's etc. - just a few examples.