Member Info for notrader

Sharky, Up2, - You're getting your Heavy D's mixed up - Only a 'D' for research I'm afraid.

Sproutsdave - at this price you should be buying. Unless of course you have no cash left, ie brassica

Bamps - don't mean to quibble (but will anyway lol) but the original JV RNS (March '19) specifically included the FS, and $20m expenditure towards it, in Stage 4 as qualification for the 10%. The revised RNS still has the $20m, but it is not tied to the FS.

Yes TT, the FS is mentioned but with no timescale. "Following the delivery of a Feasibility Study, the Management Committee will meet to consider a Decision to Mine." I would expect the FS to follow relatively quickly from the PFS, perhaps Q2 next year?

StarBright, TT, my reading is that the 5% is consequential to the vesting of the additional 10% - each line has a cumulative figure, and the 5% is additional to the 70%.

Bamps - the RNS only cites the PFS for stage 4, not the FS. This was one of the main changes from the previous sgreement.

StarBright - that RNS was superseded by the 30 Nov RNS which has revised timescales and requirements for the Hav JV

Some points: -

- NCM's 5% option vests when Stage 4 requirements are completed. This includes $20m expenditure (excluding early works, ie the decline and ground preparation, and growth drilling). We have no idea how much has been spent on Stage 4 to date.
- The independent assessor is only required to come into play if the two parties cannot come to an agreement between themselves.
- As I speculated yesterday, it is quite possible that the settlement agreement would not require a comprehensive valuation figure, but include some sort of royalty style agreement for a percentage of future annual revenue or profit.

Jiffy, Mickey - the NCM document you refer to is not the detailed agreement, merely a press release outlining the key points of the JV. There is much more detail in the GGP RNS of 30 November 2020.

To clarify the point in my earlier post; once NCM qualify for the additional 10%, it also qualifies them for the additional 5%, but there is no reference to a timescale for them to exercise it.

Lenz - you posted "Earn an additional 10% Farm-in Interest and qualify for 5% additional option
Within 24 months(from Stage 3)"

In the GGP RNS of 30 Nov, (https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/greatland_gold/news/rns/story/w1je54w) the 24 months refers only to the additional 10%. The 5% is referred to in the next line "Newcrest retains its option to acquire an additional 5% interest at fair market value" and there is no limiting timescale attached.

There seems to be an assumption amongst many that the 5% FMV consideration from NCM will involve a cash payment. There are alternatives, and given that most people seem to recognise the problems of determining values for future exploration, one that seems likely to me is that there could be a negotiated agreement for ongoing payments for a period, perhaps extending to the life of the mine. For example, there could be a lump sum payment, followed by annual royalty style payments of up to 5% of revenue (or perhaps profit) from mine output. This could resolve the problem of trying to forecast future resource growth.

DA - it's not the content of the post that got it removed, it was the fact that he spammed it across 30 boards in a few minutes.

SAS - is there an echo in here?

Colin - "Apple is a going concern, producing new product. GGP is not producing so no comparison."

When you bought into GGP in January, then got caught on the spike with an average of 30p+, you said 'I want to see income this year from selling product not by delaying the mining'

I think from this, people can see the depth of your research and investment nous. Obviously, you knew nothing about the company and were a trader looking to join the GGP gravy train and got greedy. It is nobody's fault but your own that you bought shares on an assumption that was never going to happen.

Colin - "Predicting a year into the future about something that hasn't happened is at best a guess and is pointless"

That must be one of the stupidest things you've ever posted, especially on an investment BB. Perhaps you should write to Warren Buffet and let him know that you think his investment strategy is pointless.

Value Seeker - well deserved praise for Callum. But you would have needed a DeLorean to have been invested since 1997, as the company was founded in 2005!

Maxwell - interesting that on the other boards you post on you also speculate and predict forthcoming takeovers. Why is that? Is it part of your investment strategy to seek out takeover candidates?

Zoros - you may receive your income electronically, and you payments may be made digitally, but both are transacted within the purview of a Fiat currency - the GB Pound sterling. (Assuming you live in the UK)

Tiggerman -

Your Q2 - you should note that the old MRE gave an estimate of inferred resource. The PFS will need to base it's business case on indicated resource. There are significant differences in the statistical criteria used between the two. Inferred can use much looser assumptions; the evidence is "sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity". The level of statistical criteria for indicated is higher. Evidence is derived from "adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation".

Although there has been a large amount of infill drilling, Bamps has confirmed that the 'shell' area to be included in the PFS is different from that of the MRE. That, and the stricter criteria for indicated resource suggest to me that the resource figures may not be significantly higher that the existing inferred.

Useful reading on mineral resource definitions: https://mrmr.cim.org/media/1128/cim-definition-standards_2014.pdf

Burleigh - so basically you invented your statement about last Friday, and are surprised that someone checked and called you on it. That's a different mindset altogether

Sorry, that was Mr Bronson to Hydro.