Member Info for Ninetopprizesof

As for you 96 and Nap - you both sound like spin doctors for whatever political party takes your fancy.

And I've no doubt whatsoever neither of you will understand what I've just said!

Sadly, that's the mentality we sometimes have to deal with.

Bedsit, cider, spliff, fake Burberry cap, a pitbull.... No life whatsoever, as fully proven by the amount of time you spend here spouting absolute garbage!

HG you seem to be perpetually stuck in the mindset that if anyone dare raise concern, they must be a paid poster.

That's utter nonsense - utter nonsense!

I am a fellow investor.

I don't plug money into a share and sit back for years and years in the hope that things all come good in the end, which seems to be what you have done.

I will enter, exit, re-enter, exit as I choose.

Get your head out of the sand.

Hello HG, not at all surprised that you popped up. It seems your enthusiasm to run me down has somewhat clouded your rational thought process. 

" If you use the internet or even AI and and asked how many mines in Australia have not been built became of saline aquifers the answer comes back as zero."

I'll take a guess and suggest most aquifers are pretty much saline, perhaps our first and second aquifers were saline?

If you're suggesting, in a roundabout way that I don't believe the Lower Confined Aquifer can't be dealt with, then I suggest you re-read what I posted. 

Second line down!

My point was the potential slippage of the FS.

Rockwater, in their hydrogeological assessment stated: Borehole data/model uncertainty; possible overage on water inflow vs. design. No update since that statement was made!

Silver City who are doing the boreholes have said they're uncertain of the yield and long-term aquifer drawdown!

Our evaporation pond contractors: approvals and construction timing pending; environmental compliance in progress.

Australian Government (FIRB, DCCEEW, EPA) approvals in progress; Stage 2 mining/environmental approvals critical!

WA Regulators (DMIRS, DWER) - water permits, approvals for expansion in progress!

Audit and technical advisors (SRK, PKF, etc.) under review but unable to complete, still requires auditor sign-off!

12 weeks to cross these hurdles - piece of pizz hey HG?

Like I said, I do believe we will mine at some point but I strongly believe there will be slippage in the date given to the market(s) for the FS.

Oh and by the way, it's notable that the usual fools followed your post in their "knowledgeable" way.

Laughable!

Freddie "Yes makes you wonder what would happen if they decide not to mine"

I do believe we will mine - at some point...

Revised outlook for FY26 - SP crashes 24%

Aussies declare the cost guidance and production downgrade to be a "material deviation" from IPO declarations / expectations.

In relation to the LCA at Havieron, it was explicitly stated that the resumption of the underground decline was "not on the critical path" for overall project development. Are we to interpretate that to mean resumption of the underground decline is not essential to the timely completion of the overall project. In other words, even if the LCA issue is not overcome, it won’t delay the final delivery date of the project (seems odd).

I hope this somewhat ambiguous statement wasn't crafted to de-risk Aussie investor perception around operational delays at Hav. 

The last thing we need is the Aussies declaring another, yet this time, huge "material deviation".

No doubt there will be claims of no wonder GGP went into overkill with the number of drills at Telfer.

24% crash last time - what we looking at if FS date is knocked back? Not just from the Aussies, but worldwide.

I shudder to think.

Havieron is the jewel, it's what everyone is investing in.

Would be interesting to know which market get's news about the FS first.

Could always fast track purchase of Antipa to soften the blow I suppose.

Apologies for the somewhat rushed post, had I the time it's constructure would have been better.

Can anyone tell me why Blackrock who bought 2.93% of voting shares, took another 0.12% of voting shares on loan?

Do Blackrock have the right to exercise those extra 0.12% votes, unless the lender recalls those shares for a "scheduled meeting" 

Who was the lender - was it Tembo or was it Firetail?

I know Tembo play their cards very close . Firetrail on the other hand reveal through their own fund documentation, which explicitly notes borrowing (for shorting) and, by implication, lending (to generate extra revenue) as part of its strategy for absolute return funds. Did Firetrail lend to Arrow for the short?

I'm aware the UK Stewardship Code, suggests that asset owners recall shares ahead of critical votes, but in practice, many shares remain out on loan if no major controversy is foreseen, especially in passive or index-tracking portfolios (and that shapes cross listings apparently?). 

BlackRock’s filing reveals their investment is controlled through a gobbledygook structure of global subsidiaries, spreading over the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and various offshore centres.

Is it fair to assume that these numerous "individual" holdings lay beneath the reporting threshold?

How many voting shares do Blackrock actually have?

Has anyone "foreseen" the takeover bid that is coming our way?

I did sell 70% yesterday but now timing the buy-back.

No idea what Wyloo think, or are they part of it?

Who knows hey?

Thanks Jiffy, I do appreciate that.

Disappointed there wasn't a moustachioed tenor singing though!

Great news Spade - "And there we have it !

Trade No 701 - 14892 @ 3.0985 time 12:49:25 just shown up now along with another shed load"

I love to learn, where did it just show up?

Sageman, everyone to their own.

You'll have your view and I will have mine.

In no way am I offering any type of financial advice, merely my own view.

Your mix makes sense as a high-conviction precious-metals tilt with some income buffers, but it’s far from a broadly diversified portfolio. WSBN is a tiny, volatile gold-explorer punt; Jupiter Gold & Silver and physical gold double-up on precious-metal risk; Artemis Global Income is still equity-heavy; and Aegon High Yield adds credit risk rather than core government bonds.

Here's my view of your diversification... Precious-metals concentration: WSBN, Jupiter and physical gold all move closely with gold prices. Your equity exposure: Artemis is still ~80–100% in stocks, so limited true fixed-income ballast. You have a credit exposure: Aegon’s high-yield bonds offer income but carry default risk and correlation with equities in stress.

You lack broad government bond or global equity-index exposure, which typically reduce portfolio volatility and cushion downturns. If I were you, I would add a gilt or global aggregate bond fund for uncorrelated rate-sensitive ballast. I'd also seriously consider a low-cost global equity ETF to diversify away from specialist miners and equity-income types.

I'd definitely keep WSBN as a small “exploration punt,” but cap it at under 5% of your total holdings.

To keep ahead with your "diversification" you'll have to be busy with monitoring correlations; tracking gold moves, equity income, credit spreads - which means you're going to have to move quickly when prices diverge.

Like I said, in no way is this any sort of financial advice - just my own view.

But everyone to their own and I do sincerely wish you good fortune.

HG - "@geckos like Bamps I’ve got snapshots of almost most everything 😊. I posted Bamps 54 metres width of Supergene at camp dome earlier. Didn’t attract any commentary from 9. Do I care? NO"

I was looking for some sort of corroboration, a bit of certainty if you like, absolutely nothing negative in my questioning of what Bamps had claimed.

"Didn't attract any commentary from 9. Do I care? NO"

I'm sorry HG, had I realised you were seeking commentary from me then I would have obliged.

I think you do care, else why make such a statement (considering the topic was crossed off many hours ago).

Lets both agree on a truce. You've been trolling me every time I post. You have tried to create a catalogue of dirt against me, ready at a moments notice to discredit anything I say. I'm happy to have no further conversations, nor make reference to you or your posts. Hopefully you can be mature enough to do the same.

This board can do without such childishness.

HG "Ive been told that Byrnecut will be back at Havieron in September. Not everything is disseminated in a RNS."

Told? Told?

Or did you just read it somewhere?

Just what is it that you're attempting to disseminate?

HG, that's hardly reassuring, is it?  Joe is going to be assisting with the design for depressurising and dewatering confined aquifer in poor ground prior to mining. Surely, we were led to believe the design was already in place and making great progress, albeit without any measures.

Sounds like a carelessly crafted post from Joe, some sort of assurance that he's the man to deal with the deep-rooted operational issues and unresolved uncertainties with the LCA.

Many on here thought the LCA resolution was a done job? What's the truth? And why have you decided to set the cat amongst the pigeons?

Me thinks Joe will be getting a good talking to from Shaun!

In fairness, the article was from February 2025 - pre consolidation.

However, what's more concerning is, how does one credibly evaluate the qualifications of whoever provided these forecasts?

To my mind it's nothing more than regurgitated drivel.

Who wrote the piece - امید فدایی ? Where's the supporting evidence?

Absolute bunkum!

Or, if someone wishes to besmirch your character they can request the same from their broker and do as suggested.

Spade "... look out for my trade at 12:49 on Friday of 14,892 share that has yet to be shown"

I don't think most, if indeed any, on here will set eyes on your Friday order to be fair. If it didn't appear on the live feed - it never will.

The timing, as you know, doesn't coincide with one of the auctions, so it wasn't reported en bloc.

The likelihood is that your order was routed off-exchange, in which case it will be in the consolidated tape.

For others to see that tape they would need to either go through the LSEG Connect Data Manager or use the DLOAD on Bloom. 

You however, can contact your broker and request the "All-Trades" or "Off-Book" end of day file for Friday. 

But you don't need to do this because you have confirmation from your broker.

If you feel that others consider you a fraud (I have no reason to) then post a copy of your broker confirmation on X or Youtube or the likes, with the necessary redactions of course. Then post a link on here.

All sound a bit tedious?

Sageman " a rocking well diversified portfolio"

With respect, I would consider it anything but. At least in the true sense of diversification. You do go on to mention "albeit overweight in gold"

Tongue in cheek perhaps?

MH01 is correct. Specifically "Wyloo has the option to acquire half of Newmont’s stake", which originally stood at 20.4%

Elcobbledore "Does anyone think a bigger fish may swoop in and buyout GGP as seems to be a hell of a lot of potential upside here? Being debt free is huge too."

Theoretically it's possible but in practice I believe it unlikely in the near term. Wyloo holds 20.75 % of voting rights (8.24 % via shares; 12.51 % via options and warrants expiring Dec 2028). Newmont still holds 9.95 %, Tembo 5.94%, Firetrail 4.86%. If you add to these holdings those of management and insiders hold - circa 11.4% - The effective free float is therefore 48%.

Don't hold me to these figures, I would suggest you check them yourself.

I can't envisage anyone convincing Wyloo to sell ~20.75 % voting rights (including expensive in-the-money instruments). I think it more likely Wyloo would take-up the options on Newmont's 9.95% if another big player were to make an offer.

It's worth noting that despite lots of talk about Wyloo having options at 7.2p and ROFR - there is absolutely nothing official to confirm this. It is likely, since it seems to be standard practice but that doesn't confirm it's true.

Also, if Wyloo were forced to that, they would cross the 30% holding rule which means they would then have to make a mandatory takeover offer - I don't think this is something they want to do.

All just my view of course.

Thanks Bamps, that's good enough for me. Who was the report compiled by?

Hi Bamps,

Interesting post. Would appreciate a link or nudge in the direction of that 2013/2014 report re. Camp David.

Just in the interests of accuracy, While chalcocite is a very high-grade copper mineral, as you say circa 80%, it is a secondary, supergene ore. Primary chalcopyrite remains the dominant commercial copper ore globally. Most world copper output—over 90 %—derives from hypogene, chalcopyrite-hosted sulphide deposits.

I've always found your research to be of a very high standard, however I feel a 54m thick blanket would be exceptionally deep in the Paterson - usually around 10-20m?