Member Info for MF11

Hi Bamps,

Yes costs will definitely rise, but at the last town hall he did say that if he got hold of Telfer he would run it at half capacity, which would reduce both running and labour costs. He said that he would do this by only processing ore using a single FIFO processing team. Processing when on site and doing maintenance when offsite.

There will be other cost efficiency measures he can implement as well.

Whilst the AISC will increase, personally I think your $2000 is quite a bit too high.

Thanks but only 14 months out of date.

Since when has being stupid had anything to do with name calling.

Touching a nerve - touché

Open minded - touché

Stupid most definitely.

Are you too stupid to consider that both may be true.

@MH01 - Thanks great video.

But - "To dispel the conspiracy theories on GGPs share price, watch this. Perhaps this will end the posts about manipulation etc."

Were we watching the same one. How can you come to the conclusion watching that video that GGP has not been manipulated when:

1. We know at various periods over the past few years that GGP have been shorted by different entities and if fact one still has an active short on GGP. This has been tracked over the years /months and has been shown to correlate to SP suppression. https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=164&sid=a37179e0e16f1c92e9bb2a33680e8eb8

2. Whilst neither the GDX and GDXJ have been performing greatly over the past months, could you please explain to me how during the last GDXJ period the majority of GDXJ components had their SP increase, and the average for all constituents during that period was an increase of 2.22%. Whilst the GGP SP dropped 28%.

Yes some holders may have differing opinions on manipulation but please do not use videos such as the one you attached to justify your rhetoric, especially where there is no correlation between the video and your statement.

Well better than GGP in comparison anyway.

@JamesP21 - "Have other junior explorers done well on the back of the rise in POG?"

Yes they have, GGP was the 4th worst performer in the GDXJ over the last quarter.

Perhaps we're being shorted to keep us low, or perhaps the Institutional Investors haven't realised where we are going yet, but our time will come.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.

@Starbright - No that (his words) is the definition of accretive.

Yes, we would like any raise to be at a premium, but if it is not it does not go against the definition of being accretive.

Stop stirring.

Read between the line. more carp. Filtered.

I'm not saying we won't get any update or comment on the subject. Just simply to manage expectations the date aligns to :

1. His return to Aus from the BMO conference in the US (I am told it is an esay way back from US to AUS via the UK).

2. It coincides with the 2024 Half Year results.

3. He has scheduled his Town Halls during this week in previous years.

So a number of reasons we may not get a full update on the Newmont divestments/GGP strategy in relation to that, or any pre-meeting RNS.

Noting that I already have my ticket reserved for the Town Hall event.

Just to Bring Panama's Sprott Note back into focus. As a certain individual obviously appeared straight after she posted it to deflect away from it.

Greetings.

Recently, Newmont Mining tookover Australia’s biggest gold-copper miner Newcrest Mining to acquire a number of big significant mines that Newcrest operated. In that deal, Newmont also inherited a number of other mines and projects that were to small to meet Newmont’s definition of Tier 1 mines (mines that produce over 500,000 ounces of gold equivalent per year) which meant that at some point Newmont would put those mines/projects up for sale to raise money that would go towards paying down debt and cost of acquisition.

Yesterday Newmont announced it’s intention to do just that announcing they would be selling 6 different mines in various countries – one of which included the Telfer Mine and their nearby 70% in their joint venture with Greatland Gold at their Havieron Project where Greatland 6 years ago made a very significant new gold-copper discovery which saw Newcrest enter into their joint venture partnership. In that joint venture agreement, if Newcrest (or another company that takes over Newcrest) chooses to sell their 70% interest in that project, Greatland Gold retains a right of first refusal to match any offer.

I called and spoke with Greatland’s CEO last night and very understandably, he has to watch what he tells me that would be considered to be inside information and all he could tell me is that Greatland would be very interested in acquiring the Telfer Mine Complex if the price was right. In my own opinion, since Newcrest has told the world that since Telfer is a 40 year old mine and is running out of ore to mine in a few years, that mine is more of a liability than an asset so is not worth very much on its own.

My prediction is that Greatland Gold and Newmont will negotiate a deal whereby Greatland buys the Telfer Mine Complex along with Newmon’t 70% in the Havieron project and then Greatland will develop the Havieron deposit and transport that ore to the nearby Telfer Mine Complex for processing turning Greatland into the next significant gold – copper producer.

The last few years have seen Greatland Gold greatly strengthen their board of directors and management along with gaining the backing of Australia’s Twiggy Forrest as their largest shareholder (he founded and grew Australia’s largest iron ore mining company, Fortescue) so this team is fully capable of growing Greatland into a producer of significance.

@MH01 - Yes highly unlikely but not unknown.

I have seen many items sold at multiples there estimated value at auction. Often depends on how desperate the buyer is, how many people want the item and what the reserve price is.

Yes 10 times is probably ridiculous but multiples of current price not out of the questions.

@Sureasblazes - Totally agree,

You beat me to it. I had penned the below, and was just about to post when I read your reply. Anyway for what it's worth, here was my response.

@Jiffy - Apologies, not trying to be too facetious, but I am not sure what interview you listened to, but it must have been a different one to me.

I am totally unsure how you come to the conclusion that the "Sunset Clause" will come into effect in April. Shaun confirmed in the interview that there has never has been a specific specified date. He stated that any date will be post FS, therefore is very likely to be in the 2nd half of this year.

The "Sunset Clause" being referred to, by Shaun (and others) is basically the decision day from the original JV on the from Decision To Mine, and he has simply re-iterated that this can only take place post FS.

What he has stated is that post Feasibility Study both parties will sit together and vote on the formal DTM (before commercial mining can commence). As per previous RNS's there will be 5 decision makers on this, 3 from the major JV Partner (Newmont) and 2 from GGP.

If the decision is not majority/unanimous to mine, then the party voting for mining can but out the other party at FMV.

Try buying 50 Million shares on the open market and the Market Cap would move to at least £500 Million on that alone.

They have to buy 100 times that amount!

SCP Resource Finance Research Note from the end of Last Year. I believe they are (or were) associated to Sprott as I've seen research from Brock Saller before.

Some interesting numbers and assumptions. However, I do like the comment:

"What we like about Greatland is that whilst consolidation with Telfer would be ideal, we think this ex NST / FMG team, with investment from Andrew Forest, can springboard even from a minority into a mid-tier mining house in a manner that peer carried assets like Gold Road have yet to do."

https://bpd-space.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/scp/231221-ggp-scp-MRE.pdf

Yes related to the topic -

Only a short time frame to look at, but since the last GDXJ rebalance

68 of the 88 consituents have had their SP Rise

And yes you've guessed it, the worst performing share in the Index is GGP (88th out of 88).

Interestingly using the same calculations prior to the rebalance, we were the 4th best out of 88 and a week before the rebalance 2nd. I wonder what has changed.

I guess all of the other constituents must have had better news than us over the past week or so.

@Zoros - Vanishingly insignificant?

You obviously ignored my previous email then.

Probably best you should simply remain in your own naive cocoon.

@TT

The number of shares held in the US portion of the fund was reduced by 3,056,802 on Friday.

That said, I cannot fully reconcile individual trades from Friday to the Share movement.

If you go to the "Holdings" section of the Vaneck site, you will see the result re-allocation of shares for each constituent in the index.

I can clearly see that all shares holdings for each constituent have been updated to reflect the rebalance, when I compare to the previous days holdings.

One thing I did notice during the rebalance was that although our SP performed better than the majority of other shares in the index, our holding still went down. However, this was due to the change in Free Float of a number of the constituents in the index affecting our allocation by more than the Share Price effect on would have done by itself.

@JoubertDuquense

Bothered, no, looking forward to them closing yes. If you look at the numbers they are struggling to close their position.

Please note that the dates below for the difference in on loan numbers is delayed - so will not truly coincide with the SP (so these dates/numbers marginally skewed to reflect this).

20th October - 2nd November - On Loan - Reduced by 25 Million - SP 6.3 to 9.85

3rd November - 15th November - On Loan - fairly stable - SP 9.8 to 10.7

16th November - 20th November - On Loan - Increased by 5 Million - SP 10.7 to 9.65

20th November - 6th December - On Loan - fairly stable - SP 9.65 to 11.5

6th December - 13th December On Loan - Increased by 20 Million - SP 11.5 to 9.4

Statistics can be to prove a point by skewing the numbers slightly, but to me this is pretty clear.

Still 73 Million on loan.

@TT - Not sure why you have the impression it is anything to do with the GDXJ . It is nothing to do with that.

The GDXJ rebalance was completed on Friday and the resulting allocation of the rebalance was posted this morning on the Vaneck Website.

https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/investments/junior-gold-miners-etf-gdxj/overview/

Somebody else was responsible for this trade and it will be interesting to find out who it was.