Member Info for notrader

Midas

It might help your credibility if you were to explain why you thought funds might be needed to require a placing. The company is funded for all current projects, and in 6 - 9 months or so should be near a FS which might provide access to capital markets and non-dilutive funding for the next phases. Not to mention the cash from the 5% if NCR take it up.

Other of your investments undertaking placements seems a thin thread of logic to suggest that one will happen here. As a major shareholder, one might have thought that you would have a better understanding of GGP's position.

Freddie "food for thought"

You're obviously on a diet.

Jambo - I don't think NCM will think of us as a competitor (at least for a few years LOL). We are sitting on a significant number of good prospects, 100% owned. Our stated aim of becoming a multi-commodity mining company does not preclude bring in partners to develop them. At the moment, GGP is asset rich but not overflowing with cash.

Kempey - there is no direct relationship with NCM in his job - he is clearly a GGP employee. It is a logical approach to employ someone with experience with NCM for when they will be working together on those projects managed jointly.

I find his title interesting as, AFAIK, GGP does not have a 'Group' structure. Yet?

Couple of interesting things to consider:-

Not sure if anyone else has the word 'Group' included in their job title, others may know better. Various implications could be inferred.

This is the only new hire outside Board level to be announced by RNS

Guys - If you can show them up as liars and trolls with an agenda, then it helps the non-regular reader to see them as they are. Some are easy - they are abusive or get personal and they can be reported and admins will deal with them.

Having said that, it is very rarely that I will engage with them during trading hours, but it has been a quiet evening with little of import being discussed, and what better time to make them look foolish.

Byrnecut Mining - website https://www.byrnecutmining.com/

Infer is passive, indicate is active. You must have inferred it before you indicated it.

And there we have another difference between inferred and indicated. You have inferred that I have maligned Zoros, (and tempered my reply to him) but is far from indicated.

Trigga -

"Discussion: a conversation or debate about a specific topic."

Sorry for upsetting you by having a discussion with Zoros. I have great respect for him, and apologise to him if anything I said or how I said it caused HIM offence.

Or put it this way, perhaps for TT's benefit -

I have 42 apples. I'm looking to sell the apples and make a profit, but I can only sell the apples for 5p each.

I take 10 apples and make 2 apple pies. This leaves me with only 32 apples, but I also now have 2 pies worth 50p each. This means I can now buy more pie dishes and pastry and make more pies. As the number of apples get smaller, the value overall increases.

Substitute inferred for apples and indicated for pies, and you get the idea. And there are still plenty apples in the orchard yet to be picked

Hydro - did you read and understand Bamps' post? He said "The 4.2m in the maiden resource will be reduced for the Indicated resource, the volume is a lot smaller"

A proportion of that 4.2m (that in the SE crescent to 360m depth) will be converted to indicated. The recent infill drilling in that area will also be classified as indicated but IMO because of the reduced size of the relevant area and the stricter definitions for indicated v inferred, will not increase the 4.2m figure by much if at all. I believe the inferred figure will increase, but bear in mind that it will exclude the areas moved to indicated.

Also, increase in inferred resources will have limited affect on project valuation for IIs, as they come with limited level of statistical confidence and guarantee of extraction.

Not sure why you want to pump these figures up as high as possible, unless you are looking for a short term boost to the SP

Loggy - Bamps indicates (and I accept his knowledge far exceeds mine), the areas included will not be like for like. Yes, there will be more drill data but less area involved for the indicated.

Also, the criteria for inclusion in indicated is significantly stricter than for inferred. It is unlikely that much, if any, of the 4.2moz in the MRE would qualify for indicated status. Hence why they've bee drilling the bejasus out of it since.

Zoros - you say that you expect the revised MRE will push the SP north.

But there is also the risk that it won't. As Bamps surmised, there are reasons why it might come in lower than the 4.2moz from last year, as well as the stricter criteria for indicated than inferred. There is the potential there for a reaction similar to the Scally results, as decriers will jump on 'disappointing' figures compared to what some have been predicting.

You know what - I don't care what moz figure the MRE or PFS has, only that NCM publish them, one leads to the other and they both lead to the formal decision to mine and the extraction of first commercial gold. Anything else is speculation and froth.

Chester18 - Good summary.

The coming MRE for Hav will be part of an ongoing process over the life of the mine. It is obvious to most that a decision has been made to prioritise the initial extraction of ore via the decline, targeting relatively easily accessible resources. The initial MRE will provide JORC assurance of an indicated resource to support this phase. Further MREs will be done for expanding areas and targets outside this immediate area.

Note that the criteria for indicated are more stringent than for inferred, which can make more assumptions about grade and continuity. Indicated requires more evidence by drill sampling that there is a higher level of confidence in such factors. It is therefore to be expected that the indicated might be lower than the inferred, particularly if, as Bamps says, the volume involved is different.

Indeed Zoros. I just don't understand why 'LTHs' feel the need to make unsubstantiated claims when all the evidence is that GGP & NCM will come good by following due process. Do people have no patience for the value drivers mentioned in NCM's presentation to come good?

Normally those who make exaggerated claims are traders who are seeking to stimulate short term SP movements to assist their book.

Doggy "Could easily be bigger than we all imagined"

Don't think it can be bigger than Hydro's imagination. But I suppose he achieved his objective - people like ProfQ now quoting 30m oz as if it is a given.

Monty - "I'm drawn in a nice clear line where I can say ok once that's broken thats positive, but until its done SP is in a negative trend"

So what you're saying is that we should wait until the price goes up before we buy any GGP? When all the other chartists will also be buying, hoping to make their 10% before selling out again?

LTHs on this board believe in the fundamentals of this company, and most have already taken significant positions.

"Shaun 'Corporate' Day"

Bronson - I think your needle is stuck. Obviously trying to play a poor quality record.