Member Info for Ninetopprizesof

Hi speedymeadie,

I do find myself enthralled by your posts and I find them quite educational.

I don't hold any physical gold, nor do I hold any "paper" gold.

I now find myself on a precipice - do I go for physical or not?

I do not want to hold for more than 5 years.

Here's my concerns:

Some say that Governments in the western world alter / change / introduce policies in order to suppress the price of gold. The bankers that support (bribe) those governments flood the futures markets with massive amounts of futures contracts - dropping the price in a flash (if only to support failing currencies / bonds).

I'm yet to find any Government, or more pertinently, central bank being open about their dealings in physical gold. The "true" trading details (and they are not really true) are often lagging.

My real concern with taking the leap into buying the physical stuff is BRICS ( and those countries who are aligning to join - all anti American).

I get the impression that the BRICS nations and those who are in alignment are those who are stockpiling.

Will they eventually, perhaps in the short term, have the power to crash the price of gold, and when their opposers are ruined, raise it again?

By no means a great understander here but would welcome your, and other views.

CheekyChops1 - you always elicit a smile from me. I shall continue to endeavour in keeping an eye out for your fascinating posts.

I very much welcome views, even from the "head in sand" gang. Those who find solace in denial.

Whilst thumbing back through some recent posts, I was drawn to what may or may not have been a couple of misinterpretations.

Timber Trader - 7 June 08:38 - nothing wrong with his post - quite legitimate.

(sic) Newmont "Radically transparent" on Telfer issues with workforce, regulators, and anyone interested in the asset. "pathway to remediate" "technical support" available post transaction.

That's what Mr Palmer said, so no issues with Timbers post.

Timbers post was preceded with a post from Chippy9 - again, quite legitimate

"so weeks not months for the issue to hopefully be resolved..."

Paddy Gall kindly copied a "statement piece" on X (formerly Twitter) And I do respect Paddy's posts - always legitimate and well intended!

Mr Palmer would not be drawn... on a return to production for Telfer, but said the company had a clear line of sight to fix the problems at the tailings facilities

"a pathway to remediate where there's been some issues with those facilities is clear" he said.

"so we're just stepping our way through that, and its weeks of work to get that done. Not months and months of work".

"The remediation work is around some buttressing here and there, and in terms of just ensuring that those facilities are meeting the latest global standards".

Mr Palmer said that, while Newmont would offer technical support to any eventual buyer, it would not consider retaining liabilities for future tailings dam issues.

Now let's dissect and dig a bit deeper into all of this. (not too deep, as I don't have the time unfortunately)

Timber missed a bit of what Mr Palmer actually said. Here's a fuller version...

"When it comes to Telfer, there's been some challenges with the tailings dams [note, that's a plural - he's not talking about one dam] Tailings dams are not something you take lightly..."

"Radically transparent in terms of what that issue is, what we're doing to understand the issue and remediate the issue"

Going back to what Chipp9 said about weeks rather than months and months - Mr Palmer, somewhat crafted in what he says, actually means - it will take weeks to reveal what the issue is, and what needs to be done in order to resolve it.

At no point does he say Newmont are going to repair, he does say we know the problem and we think we know the repair.

Interestingly enough that marries in well with what a previous poster said about Telfer can't be sold without alerting any potential buyer as to the problems - as I recall, that poster likened the scenario to the selling of a used car (I do apologise for not being able to recall his name).

I think it reasonable to suggest "repairs" to the tailings dam(s) will run into the tens of millions. I shudder to think what the cost would be if the there are issues at base level. No wonder Newmont are not repairing and want rid!

In relatively short order the Department of Minerals and Energy will publish their findings - I think that will make for interesting reading.

It's a somewhat wild thought, but I believe there is a link between Actus and Rio

Lets suppose Greatland don't take the 70% and the likes of Rio do.

They will want to start from scratch with the Feasibility Study, and quite rightly so.

Or maybe, just maybe, they were given access on a "non-disclosure" basis?

Wyloo hold 8.5% of Greatland and they have provided something like 50 million loan facility.

What is Wyloos' real objective, is it just Hav? I don't believe it is, I think their real interest lies further afield - not so much a focus on gold. Obviously we are not party to the details of the loan facility and what it can be used for.

With respect, probably not a smart idea to ask questions on a Friday evening. I am however prepared to accept the merry frolics - who knows, we might find a nugget.

Happy to be corrected / enlightened.

It's my understanding that Newcrest (as manager of the Hav Joint Venture) was responsible for preparing a study for commercial mining operations - to meet their "usual and reasonable" requirements for a Feasibility Study, prepared for the purpose of making a Decision to Mine.

Following completion of the "compliant" Feasibility Study by Newcrest, the report would be presented to the "Joint Venture Management Committee - a mix of representatives from both Newcrest and Greatland in order to elicit a unanimous agreement; a Decision to Mine (subject to a previously agreed deadlock mechanism).

Now that Newmont has taken over as manager of the joint venture per se, and as such the responsibility for producing the Feasibility Study, would it be fair to assume that their "usual and reasonable" requirements differ from Newcrest's since they have decided to divest because Hav doesn't get over their hurdles/benchmarks?

Are Newmont continuing with a Feasibility Study - would they, since they have no interest in furthering the project?

I note that Greatland, in their latest half year report and presentation say the Feasibility Study is in progress / ongoing.

Should Greatland have said it's on-hold?

I don't know.

I would like to know the status though.

Wow, first modern, analysis done in 4 minutes. Oh my days!

It would make a nice change if posters actually gave some thought to what I am asking - genuinely in the interests of looking after my investment. Is there really any need for people to hit back with claims of FUD, sowing doubt etc?

Back in November 2022 the decision was made to progress with stage 8 cutback at Telfer. By all accounts at that stage Telfer was on its knees - poor grades and what not. The Havieron discovery provided Newcrest with a renewed purpose to keep Telfer going. 150 million US dollars was budgeted - with the expectation that operations would be viable up until Jan/Feb 2025 - 7 to 8 months away from now. They thought it wise at the time to hedge. From June 2023 up until the end of this month they had committed (now contractually beheld to Newmont) to 309 ounces at a floor price of 1665 US dollars per ounce (they are miles away from producing that many ounces) Todays spot is 2355 US dollars. Without taking into account inflationary rises in labour, materials, fuel, energy etc, Telfer is now a serious liability. If there are no takers for Telfer, Newmont will have to accept the closure costs (including redundancy payments of a huge workforce) and rehabilitation costs. Today GGP has a market cap of circa £375 million. If I were Mr Day, I would make this offer - We will pay zero for Telfer, and we will pay zero for your 70% of Havieron. Rio will be mincing around in the background to some extent and if we get both for zero they might jump on-board in some way or another. No one is going to touch Telfer without Havieron being a part of the deal. My question is this - can we get Telfer and the 70% for free?

Amps21

"I can't read what this new troll is saying but I can see from replies he's trying to instil doubt in peoples minds about the aquifer..." followed by a load of regurgitated guff.

Bamps21, I think you insult peoples' intelligence. Everyone knows you can read what I said, and you most certainly did. (put in green bin - take out of green bin, or rather read posts when not logged in).

I actually do feel embarrassed for you. You've clearly put a lot of time and effort into understanding GGP and the ins and outs of exploration / mining, and that should be praised but sometimes you do let yourself down.

Your closing line "don't listen to people who are only here to instil doubt". I simply asked what is going on with the LCA.

The money I have invested in GGP means an awful lot to me and I raised a perfectly legitimate question.

With all the research and studying you've done and no doubt continue to do, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what potential issues might occur once the depressurisation has been completed (in the upward direction) Solid rock, I think you said? What about the long - range linear fracturing that might occur in the lower containment? Uncontrollable flooding? That's a genuine question, not an attempt a FUD. My intention is to protect my investment.

Good luck to all the small investors

Popped back to take a look for answers to my question, as I said I would do.

I shall deal with posts in a descending order for reasons of expediency, I'm in a hurry so please excuse any typos.

barna: 11:20am. "my view of the aquifer. If there is a big problem with it how can Newmont put there (sic) 70% of Hav up for sale. The advert would say spares or repairs no tyre kickers, has a slight leak, well maintained, blah blah blah"

barna you answered your own question!

CheekyChops1: 10:32am "Hands up who is waiting for Nine and his words of wisdom and doom today? Ha Ha"

I'm neither offering words of wisdom nor doom. I simply asked a question. Sorry to disappoint.

JoubertD: 10:19am "Nine. Try harder! A lot harder! I believe that you'd buy sand from Arabia".

How hard must I try to get an answer to the question I raised regarding the LCA?

As for buying sand from Arabia - why not, if the price is right, I believe they have plenty.

In all honesty, that was a nonsensical statement.

Feeble attempts to run down my question - as expected.

I would love to stay and discuss, but other commitments take precedence.

I shall look in tomorrow in the hope of seeing some valid arguments.

For the bullying patrons, that should give you some time to come up with "excuses" for the horrendous lack of clear communication regarding the LCA.

good luck to all us small investors

Acechaser,

throw a stone and run away like a coward.

What's with the aquifer?

Maybe you can explain?

MH01,

that's sort of my point, you understand, but a lot of us don't.

Please be generous and share your understanding.

MH01

I did, and as I've alluded to, it's a load of fudge.

Might be easier for all concerned if you explained it to us in layman's terms?

Schlemiel, me likes your post - time for some truth.

I do recall the 5% issue. Mr Day made a good offer, Sandeep declined.

However, Sandeep didn't take the pizz. He knew the truth and showed his true gentlemanly side and gave GGP the 5% for free. Speaks volumes.

Flyer,

Obviously you have a handle on this.

I, as I'm sure others, would be grateful if you could put that into layman's terms.

What does that actually mean?

I shall reiterate what I said in my original post...

"I fully expect abuse for this post. Anything they can find in my history to discredit me, BUT what they will not do is address the issue"

Enlighten me and anyone else wo might be reading - how have you addressed the aquifer issue?

Lebugeu-addick, I welcome your challenge. I'm open to debate, regardless of what some might suggest.

You say "Measured flow rates are at the lower end of those previously anticipated"

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what that actually means?

Could that be interpretated as - with these flow rates, which are humungous, we are in serious trouble, but they are a bit lower - but still we are still in serious trouble?

Perhaps you are aware of the measures used.

Pompeii - volcano is gonna blow and we are nuked, but hey we thought we were gonna be buried under 20 foot of shyte but as it turns out we were only buried under 13 foot.

Taverham, no surprise your question regarding the aquifer hasn't been answered.

Long, long time ago some members pointed out that the aquifer issue was insurmountable and a new plan of action would be required. The usual bully boys, who have been here for some time, and as such think they own this board, pounced, "pincer fashion" to counter the genuine concerns. Don't expect free speech to be allowed here, any legitimate questions that might raise negative points are not allowed. The same bully boys have done their best to snuff concerns about the aquifer by shifting the focus. You know who they are and you know where they have attempted to shift focus toward.

Long since bored now of the repetitious cut and paste of the non-genuine statements regarding "we now have a better understanding... absolutely nothing from GGP and I wonder why.

Big elephant in the room that all the brethren choose to ignore.

I fully expect abuse for this post. Anything they can find in my history to discredit me, BUT what they will not do is address the issue.

But those genuine posters will see my point.