The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Hi Starbright - I'm happy to be corrected, thanks.
As I mentioned in the post then it what a quick search and I found SI and SINT in the below document weblink and in the table headed 'London Stock Exchange publishes the following types of trades'
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/help/whats-issuer-profile-overview#what-is-trades-table-
I then look for SI Trade and found this explanation:- What does SI mean in trading?
Short interest is the number of shares that have been sold short but have not yet been covered or closed out. Short interest, which can be expressed as a number or percentage, is an indicator of market sentiment. Extremely high short interest shows investors are very pessimistic (potentially overly-pessimistic).30 Mar 2021 (from Investopedia)
So looks like I took the wrong track there.
For ECHO and ECEU then I took them as listed APA's:-
taken from these weblinks:-
https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/tradechoposttrade310.pdf
TargetAPA Target APA if deemed eligible for publication. Current options:
ECHO (LSE UK), ECEU (LSE EEA)
Default: ECHO
https://www.p9dt.com/knowledge-base/esma-approved-publication-arrangement/
ECEU 213800X8D2RDODXFIY15 UnaVista TRADEcho B.V.
As I also said in my post ,then it was only an opinion from what I found online - and I'm happy that someone can provide some more clarity on the subject.
Speedy - how many oz gold you want price for ?
My stab at a basic price with 10m oz @ POG $2500:-
30% = 92p
25% = 77p
POG $3500
30% = £1.45
25% = £1.21
All just speculation with basic calculations using NCM AISC and not including tolling, tax, etc, etc.
Tymers - I should add that my previous calcs were using the NCM AISC of $743, so using the GGP assumed AISC of $643 and then I get the following:-
16m oz @ POG $1800
30% = 97p
25% = 81p
16m oz @ POG $1600
30% = 81p
25% = 67p
Roughly half those figures for 8m oz
There's been some talk and speculation regarding the optional 5% stake for NCM.
What we know is that it will be agreed on by both GGP and NCM and if no agreement then an independent assessor can/will be used. Also, as the 5% of Havieron is an asset then as I understand it then no shareholder approval is required.
Bearing in mind that NCM have the right to make the offer from December 12th 2021 then technically they could do this before the upgraded MRE, and base their figure on the 4.2m oz AuEq. Of course this would be a silly move on their part as they know that there is massive potential for a resource update, early 2022 and their not going to try an bluff it, and of course they are dealing with their JV partner so would they really want to play hard ball.
In my opinion the offer for the 5% would come after the MRE upgrade, and although I have stated previously that I think NCM will be happy with their 70% then after they stated about the timeline for the 5% starting in December then I do think they will definitely go for it (hope I’m wrong).
Let's not forget Shaun has put together a formidable experienced team which is not just forward thinking to where he wants the company to go; it is also there to provide the expertise when working with NCM on the JV’s. Some people on here go on about NCM hiding drill results or playing it down at Hav – if unexperienced people on here can think that then do you not think the GGP board would also think that - and that they are not up to the task of assessing and analysing the results from NCM?
Also, GGP do have 2 members of the 5-person management committee at Hav, so it’s not like some spy movie where the baddies are always trying to hoodwink the goodies. NCM might be the overall managers at Havieron but GGP are no mugs.
Anyway, there’s an aspect that’s sticking in my head (regarding the 5%)
Early this week there were some posts talking about a figure for the 5%; one set of figures that stick to mind was between $1bn - $4bn – is that realistic? Let’s just take the simple scenario (without ASIC/tolling) that NCM offer and pay $1bn in cash for 5 % of HAV then does that mean technically the other 25% GGP own is worth $5bn – effectively apart from the cash from NCM then should the share price go up to approx. £1.18?
Even if NCM were to offer $500m then would the other 25% be worth $2.5bn? would that put the SP at 59p?
Obviously tolling has not been taken into account but I mentioned late last year and others have mentioned that maybe part of the settlement of the 5% will include an offset for tolling, let's wait and see.
Anyway this is just my simple rambling on the 5%; it's not investment advice or determined SP figures at a future date – just an opinion.
Tymers, thanks - I used the total shares as 4,220,127,171 (incl, PT liability and Employee options). I also took the ASIC from the PFS and used varying gold prices in the calcs from $1500 to £2500. I have not taken into account any tolling or future finance requirements as these are unknown at present.
If I go to 16m oz @ $1600 :-
30% = 72p
25% = 60p
lol - I'm hoping the gold price keeps to near the $1800 mark and above
I think we can see the big difference is the total shares used; but also my calc is only basic for Hav and does not include any value for other assets.
Of course, it's all total conjecture and does not reflect what the true SP will be in the market.
There plenty to come in the long run; Hold for Gold (laden ore getting to Telfer)
Tymers - I do have to ask, is your 88p with GGP holding 30% or 25% of Hav ? and what total Au oz, POG and ASIC did you use ?
Not a pedantic post, I've just done some rough calcs and want to see if I'm near it with some of my figures.
This might be a silly question regarding using the total of 4.2 billion shares to be used in calculations.
From the Greatland website then there are 3,964,547,171 shares in issue and the contingent liability to Pacific Trends is 145,530,000 (on decision to mine).
There is also the Director/Employee Options in issue, totalling 110 million.
So in total the figure that should for calcs is 4,220,127,171 - is there anything I'm missing ?
Actually I should have also posted the trades:-
2021-11-04T16:51:31.000 GBX 16.76 1186796 198907.0096 Off-Book SINT P ECHO
2021-11-04T16:51:31.000 GBX 16.76 1186796 198907.0096 Off-Book SINT P ECEU
2021-11-04T16:51:22.000 GBX 16.76 313204 52492.9904 Off-Book SINT P ECHO
2021-11-04T16:51:22.000 GBX 16.76 313204 52492.9904 Off-Book SINT P ECEU
2021-11-04T16:51:10.000 GBX 16.76 313204 52492.9904 Off-Book SINT P ECHO
2021-11-04T16:51:10.000 GBX 16.76 313204 52492.9904 Off-Book SINT P ECEU
2021-11-04T16:51:11.000 GBX 16.76 1186796 198907.0096 Off-Book SINT P ECHO
2021-11-04T16:51:11.000 GBX 16.76 1186796 198907.0096 Off-Book SINT P ECEU
2021-11-04T16:46:38.073 GBX 16.806 1370000 230242.2 Off-Book XOFF TNCP ECHO
2021-11-04T16:42:06.087 GBX 16.807 1370000 230255.9 Off-Book AIMX PRIC P AIMX
For the last trades then this is an off book share as XOFF means the trade was traded OFF a main exchange - probably over the counter between 2 parties without any exchange participation. I do not know how the exchange between AIM and LSE work and cannot find anything on it.
LSE Admin - Please note that these are historical share trades and therefore not live data, so there is no impact to the share or sharing of information that is not already on public display, so there is no criminal offence to print these share trades.
This is a subject that has had much discussion on the GGP board and therefore is on topic information for members who frequent the GGP board, so please do not remove the post.
As I said in a previous post, I'm not trying to start any conspiracy. I did a quick search regarding the codes at he end of the off book trades SINT P ECHO - SINT P ECEU
From what I can make out:-
SINT is a short interest trade:- SI Trade
SI (short interest)
SINT Immediate / Deferred / No Publication
'P' Protected Portfolio - A protected portfolio transaction or, if reporting a trade resulting from a worked principal agreement for a portfolio transaction.
ECHO/ECEU is the Approved Publication Arrangement (APA) - an organisation authorised to publish trade reports on behalf of investment firms.
ECHO is London Stock Exchange APA. TRADEcho is the suite of reporting services operated by London Stock Exchange. As well as providing on Exchange off-book trade reporting, it is approved as an Arranged Publication Arrangement (APA) in both the UK and EU, authorised by the FCA in the UK and AFM in the Netherlands
ECEU is a European APA - ECEU UnaVista TRADEcho B.V. - which have approved TRADEcho trade reporting, so I'm assuming the link between is shares sold/purchased in Europe are published via ECHO and ECEU APA's or vice versa.
As we all know there is shorting against the share, so maybe the information above indicates that the group/company shorting the share is based in Europe. Sorry, it's not really exciting or big news, but just thought I'd have a look at it because the post with specific after hours trades was removed yesterday evening. I still can't understand why it was removed, when I've seen dozens of previous posts with share trades in them.
Of course, I'm only posting what is an opinion formed from what I could find online, so do not take it as wholly accurate information and I'm happy to be corrected by anyone.
Matty - maybe but there has been numerous threads/posts with share trades included previously and actually the first post in this thread has share trades. There was only one post with the share trades and subsequent posts with the speculation comments, so why remove 4 or 5 posts.
Not trying to create any conspiracy, just thought it strange the posts were removed - they seemed innocuous to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but yesterday evening MaxwellD posted some posts on speculation that some shares were going/transferred to Europe because of the codes at the end of the trades; the trades were after hours.
Did anyone thinks these posts were disruptive or off topic ? If he was incorrect with the speculation then I still didn't see anything wrong with the posts.
Yes it is when they talk nonsense.
There's many companies in Australia with 'Havieron' like targets. Our new targets have only been announced but not explored by us, so I'm quite sure any big boys thinking of lining up to 'take us over' (if there is actually any) are not going to think "oh look, they've now also identified two new targets, quick get that chequebook out".
If there was any big company thinking of taking over GGP (which I don't think there is at present), then it would be for what GGP have at Havieron - not because they might have other possibilities on licenses that have not been drilled or proven up !
Zoros - I don't think some of them are that naive; there's certainly a subtle poster who posts with positivity in quite a few posts and then slides in the negative slant.
But anyway, in my opinion it is a good RNS and hopefully we keep it positive today.
It's only obvious that the troll wants to spread FUD on the GGP LSE board. He/She obviously have reasons to try and create doubt in GGP shareholders minds and get them to sell shares, there is no other reason.
It doesn't matter if they are working for a shorting group or just want a lower entry price for a big buy for themselves or who they work for/client; what matters is that you don't get fooled by them and start panicking or having doubt in your investment.
Whether you have done your own research or used information on here or twitter from the likes of Bamps, Hydro, Paddy, Magictrades, et al then you invested because you understand and believe the fundamentals of Greatland Gold and what they share at Havieron and possibilities on other licenses.
You will also know that Havieron will be mined; If Newcrest thought it was uneconomical to pull ore out of the ground from 400-1200+ metres deep and transport it 55km to be processed then they certainly wouldn't be throwing $millions at it. They need that ore for Telfer, and no matter what is said on here today or speculated by anyone in the future, that ore is coming out of the ground and heading to Telfer.
Every drilling update only brings better and better results and lets not forget the last exploration update provided this:-
"HAD117W6 returned 120.4m @ 10g/t Au & 0.66% Cu from 764.6m. This is the best gram metre intercept drilled to date at Havieron"
So after 2 years of drilling and still finding mineralisation in every hole and finding great intercepts like the one above then do you think Newcrest will think it's not economical to mine ? Remember, Newcrest are the biggest gold miner in Australia and I'm sure they know a lot more than people who post on here, so anybody on here that says it's too uneconomical or will never be mined are talking out of their backside.
Good things come to those who wait.
(Anyone replying to this post: - Please do not mention any members names; and note that this is a GGP related post and not 'off topic' or in any way intended to be disruptive)