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.
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/
Section on Greatland Gold from around 19m 55s in.
https://youtu.be/HpBDQ3M6txQ?t=1195
Also as posted on TG:
They don't claim to have captured them all based on their selection criteria but confident they have most and also as the data set has grown the trends have remained fairly constant.
Both Lassonde Curve and PPSS are not accurate predictors I guess and study states lack of correlation in what makes top 5 gainers the best or metric/s such as resource size that most influence the gains so both models are very loose as I imagine company, market and asset sentiment also major influences on each project.
The report covers various types of mines mate and not just precious metals, sorry that gold/silver excerpt was for the other board I posted on :-)
As posted on TG pages 5 and 19 of the report cover data set, selection criteria and limitations of the study.
https://independentspeculator.com/img/uploads/media/files/PDF/PPSS-2023.pdf
taken from a post made on another board but feel it applies to ufo too with the han**** project hopefully providing a pre production rerate :-)
biggest lesson personally being a newbie into the sector from late 2019 is to avoid holding through a junior's 'orphan phase' (past the discovery hype phase of the lassonde curve for a discovery) unless they have made another discovery or have some revenue perhaps, and also ignoring any nearology and 'advantages' such as existing infrastructure etc. unless we're in some amazing bull run for the sector i.e. avoid becoming the dumb retail money :-)
as for the lassonde curve and moving into the second wave, i've studied lobo tiggre's pre production sweet spot (ppss) study which analyses a few decades of data back into the 1980's for projects moving from dtm to first production (fp) and the findings are very interesting.
essentially 9 out of 10 mines that achieve a dtm come to fruition (and havieron already has much development work ongoing pre dfs so the odds of production are very high despite some vocal gainsayers). but there wasn't an obvious link to a particular metric identified (npv, production profile, resource size etc.) that dictates how much of a rerate.
although the 5 best from the 124 project studied did manage an average from their market cap at dtm to fp of 750% (the average amongst gold and silver mining projects was a 106% gain from dtm to fp).
imo perhaps the magnitude of a retrace will depend again on the random wildcard of any hype around the company, if so, let's hope we can recapture the magic of 2020 and also again be accompanied by tailwinds to assist in getting back to much higher levels.
link below to:
1/ the analysis i made on ggpchat:
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=4786#p4786
and
2/ also a youtube link from a long interview with lobo discussing the study.
https://youtu.be/0g0fkic5954?si=ej2z7w5qjnzsfpm4
I was in the boat of those that thought an independent MRE wouldn't provide a meaningful and sustained retrace at the stage of the project we are in now, I suspect we won't see a meaningful retrace without either a significant inrush to the sector by general investors or delivery of our long delayed DFS/DTM once clarity is also achieved on Newmont's plans for Hav/Telfer.
Biggest lesson personally being a newbie into the sector from late 2019 is to avoid holding through a Junior's 'Orphan Phase' (past the Discovery Hype phase of the Lassonde Curve for a discovery) unless they have made another discovery or have some revenue perhaps, and also ignoring any nearology and 'advantages' such as existing infrastructure etc. unless we're in some amazing bull run for the sector i.e. avoid becoming the dumb retail money :-)
As for the Lassonde Curve and moving into the second wave, I've studied Lobo Tigre's Pre Production Sweet Spot (PPSS) Study which analyses a few decades of data back into the 1980's for projects moving from DTM to first production (FP) and the findings are very interesting.
Essentially 9 out of 10 mines that achieve a DTM come to fruition (and Havieron already has much development work ongoing pre DFS so the odds of production are very high despite some vocal gainsayers). BUT there wasn't an obvious link to a particular metric identified (NPV, production profile, resource size etc.) that dictates how much of a rerate.
Although the 5 best from the 124 project studied did manage an average from their market cap at DTM to FP of 750% (the average amongst gold and silver mining projects was a 106% gain from DTM to FP).
IMO perhaps the magnitude of a retrace will depend again on the random wildcard of any hype around GGP, if so, let's hope we can recapture the magic of 2020 and also again be accompanied by tailwinds to assist in getting back to much higher levels.
Link below to:
1/ the analysis I made on GGPChat:
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=4786#p4786
and
2/ also a YouTube link sent to me by Stuart H (who also grabs all those amazing Havieron pics on twitter) from a long interview with Lobo discussing the study.
https://youtu.be/0g0FkiC5954?si=ej2z7W5QjnZSfpM4
As always - DYOR and have a lovely weekend :-)
XMas special podcast featuring Shaun Day from The Sunday Roast:
https://youtu.be/DXSgwE3k3VM?si=MYEz3d-mxDvxs-tV
No offence Icebank but pretty sure you were certain of the exact opposite in your last SRES post on the 22nd, did you have a big change of heart during xMas dinner, ha just teasing you unless I am misconstruing your last two posts :-))
I'm not surprised at all, Tolsa have no need to rush and continue to assess properly for a paltry to them payment of £100k... and perhaps even gain an opportunity to pick up cheaply if SRES get financially distressed for any reason.
Many a decent project will get picked up for cheap in this current environment by larger, better capitalised players as part of the challenges for PC to navigate through.
troy will probably have lost his performance options as moving on from ufo which is why some doubt will creep in for some as why lose in theory an easy payday.as for the blujay farce, troy himself should have handled the situation better i presume but not a fan of the instability and unprofessionalism in certain aspects of the leadership team here with such good assets to commercialise. again, the price action suggests some 'leakiness' prior to an rns announcement. can't say i was ever keen on rod or troy and they certainly didn't stick around to follow through the plans they set to being close to fruition, so it proved to be correct.
the production rerate for han**** is still very appealing as an investor but i'd like to see the aforementioned matters improve to consider very long term investment here, otherwise the assets will just be snapped up cheap eventually by a major imo. such instability is unhelpful when negotiating for funding/jv's as not very appealing to potential partners. it would be good to see a ceo put in place who wants to build a company and have a proven history that displays this vs just being a short term catalyst to now help appease any doubt around the company.
missed deadlines and delays are unavoidable in this sector when developing assets, especially where you have stakeholder negotiations around first nations and the usual permitting related delays this industry seems to suffer from, but comms need to improve greatly since bill left with pi's and would be great if they manage to get within q1 '2024 so not missing the current deadline for eoy by too much.
hopefully everything still on track for production deadline to be met but the bod need to prioritise bringing some stability into the team, projects/companies suffer with constant turnover of staff at any level outside the natural shift required for a junior explorer transitioning to a producer.
Many of us inc. me assumed that the Telfer infrastructure and fact that a lot of developmental work was being conducted prior to DFS meant we could mostly ignore the Orphan Period and that we'd make another discovery in no time and also that the money leaving the sector in 2021 wouldn't affect us.
So IMO it hasn't been just shorting and market sentiment but that the DFS/DTM are required despite the early construction and existing infrastructure. Also, we have seen the timeline shift from the original one from the NCM PFS too as invariably Havieron wasn't immune to a few issues with the development such as the decline initially and now LCA.
However, what I'm hoping will be of benefit is that once we do get the DFS/DTM that should in theory help kickstart the demand for shares that the fact we have the existing infrastructure and much of the developmental work completed we see a quicker journey up Wave 2 but of course, that is just theory based on no prior experience.
Both resolutions voted through.
https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/pathfinder-minerals-PFP/share-news/Pathfinder-Minerals-Plc-Result-of-General-Meeting/92872902
LOl TT and no transcript or software Ace so had to listen and type out quickly, had a important conf. call at 11:30am so very rushed tbh, have tested a few apps but been rubbish to date - so for shorter ones happy to rely on my memory and less than stellar speed typing skills :-)
Wanted to get out quickly so folk focus on the info. relayed in the interview as an independent MRE is unlikely to help be a major SP catalyst as can be seen today as what we need now is a DFS/DTM to really start the next phase of LC, we're far past the hype phase and of course next couple of months we'll see what NEM do with resource and reserves and if Hav is part of 2024 optimisation plans and my mid year their plans for entire portfolio while we hit our own development milestones
Agree with Bamps that perhaps NEM want to release reserves themselves, perhaps in Feb annual updates and good to see that Bamps Link Zone theory is officially confirmed by MRE :-)
Notes from Proactive Interview re HAVIERON MRE UPDATE - 21 Dec 2023
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=861
Https://youtu.be/iaHANfC2xao?si=e4Qf9Ivc5-nAttiy
Contacted SRES to see if anything planned for here, unlikely I presume though.
Here's a reminder too on the 'Pre Production Sweet Spot' study that looked at 124 mining projects from the 80's to present day from the point that a construction decision was made, much of the current work (expense & resources) that has been conducted at Havieron would usually be post DFS/DTM not before.
Taking that into account I'd assume that Havieron very much fits into the 93% plus of mines that come to fruition. Someone is going to be mining this ore body is a fairly safe assumption IMO :-))
Full report breakdown here:
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=812
Report Dataset:
- Report dataset includes 124 cases of first-time mine builders stretching back to the 1980s, cases consist of exploration companies with a published CD or an announcement that construction had started.
- Included those that failed to reach FP or Commercial Production (CP) or failed to reach either.
- Excluded cases with incomplete/unclear data, mines that were restarted after care/maintenance or companies buying or expanding producing assets.
- The overall odds of success are 92–95%; the average gain of these is almost 100%; and it’s possible to bag around 750% on the top performers.
- One thing that came out significantly is that the average result improved somewhat when holding on after first pour to commercial production but changes the average period from 570 to 737 days.
- Many stocks see a retrace if the mine doesn’t profit the forecasted profitability but most saw additional gains as the companies ramped up into CP.
Here are the basic findings for all 124 cases:
- The whole exercise is aimed at measuring the typical gains for speculation on the transition from exploration to production.
- 91.9% succeed at building their mines (making it from CD to FP).
- 95.2% succeed if we count mines built after a takeover.
- 568.8 days is the average time from CD to FP.
- 97.0% is the average gain from CD to FP.
- 111.0% is the average gain from CD to CP.
- 745.5% is the average gain from CD to FP for the top five cases.
- 20.2% is the average gain during bear markets.
- 132.4% is the average gain during bull markets.
Gold and Silver miners specifically:
- 93.4% succeed at building their mines (making it from CD to FP).
- 96.2% succeed if including mines built after a takeover.
- 560.7 days is the average time from CD to FP.
- 91.0% is the average gain from CD to FP.
- 106.0% is the average gain from CD to CP.
- 594.0% is the average gain from CD to FP for the top five cases.
- 27.6% is the average gain during bear markets.
- 118.5% is the average gain during bull markets.
- 71.7% of all gold and silver PPSS cases delivered positive gains.