In reply to Spymaster25: ''Is this even a significant find. who understands nickel content.''
If it was a drill core result then no it wouldn't be significant unless very large scale and open pit (even then low grade), but in soil sampling it's an indicator of what may lie below.
A good nickel grade is over 1% nickel sulfide. Nickel laterites are harder to make work economically.
See Premium Nickel Resources Limited (PNRL) recent exploration drilling at Selebi North where they're converting an historic SAMREC resource to NI-401 standard and growing the resource. 1 - 2% nickel sulfide.
What's interesting for GGP (the same excitement at PNRL) is the conductive plates that show up on the AEM survey. These AEM conductive plates will be what GGP will want to drill test.
To understand why AEM is a good tool for nickel exploration have a look for Warren Irwin's presentation 'This is Why You Should Have Nickel Sulfide Exposure' at Vancouver conference earlier this year. Long-short is that nickel lights up on AEM, but it can be confounded with granite and other magnetic signatures. PNRL's AEM survey suggests much more nickel to come from beneath the current resource because there's no granite in the area to confound, so there's a good chance the conductor plates are nickel sulfide.
In Panorama's case there is granite (and greenstone) in the area, so the conductor plates may be showing nickel/may be granite or something else.
Early stages, don't let the pumpers (hydro) or dumpers convince you either way.
Also see Centaurus Metals 'Jaguar' development project in Brazil for example of large scale advanced nickel sulfide project. Centuaras has suffered this year due to spot price of nickel taking a beating due to Indonesia greatly increasing supply of nickel by its in-country high pressure acid leaching production of class 1 nickel. Future nickel pricing outlook isn't what people thought it would be due to this new method of production (which is environmentally quite destructive).
GGP broke through the 200dma on Monday and price has remained above, today is 5th day above the 200dma.
The last time it spent any time above the 200dma was May this year (7 days), and you have to go back to 2021 in March for the previous time it held for 5 days or longer over the 200dma.
Small signs. Like an oil tanker turning
Updated note from Cannacord.
''Havieron project update:
.......
Initial drilling has indicated greater volumes of water to be managed than originally modelled, so decline development will continue in the short term before being paused to allow for additional drilling and hydrological data collection. In order to derisk the overall project development, this will be incorporated into the feasibility study which is now scheduled for the September 2024 quarter. We note that this is significantly later than originally planned (Dec-22), but we remind investors that the process of building the decline in parallel with the feasibility study means that mine development activities are ongoing and well progressed. We view Havieron as a world-class asset, with low opex, a brownfield capex profile, and significant exploration upside that is likely to make it a large producing, long-life asset. The next catalyst for the company is likely to be an MRE update which we expect imminently. Maintain SPEC BUY rating and 20p target price.''
This is normal stuff - it's just technical execution risk of building out, and why you have a 'Lassonde curve' not a 'Lassonde straight rising line'. Also why you have a discount to NPV during the construction phase. And why you sell the first peak in the Lassonde curve and (perhaps) buy the dip.
Note 'MRE imminent'.
On an unrelated note, LSE your website has turned into an absolute dog turd with all the pop-ups. Annoying and close to unusable. The pop-ups are a good advert for finding alternative sites.
I think the details of any sale of Telfer-Hav would have to include the seller retaining responsibility for Telfer open pit and underground, plus a portion of the Telfer facility - as Havieron doesn’t require all of Telfer faculty to process Havieron ore. A buyer would be crazy to purchase a processing facility 100% larger than required even in the best-case future scenario of run rate increasing to 20mtpa - only one of the two Telfer trains is required to process 20mtpa.
So a buyer has a lot of power in only requiring, say, 50% of Telfer plant and 0% of the Telfer mine open pot or underground. Thus, zero% of the respective decommissioning cost for the unpurchased portion of Telfer.
The seller has some power, in the fact that Hav requires a processing plant. Or else the journey for the owner of Hav without Telfer becomes longer and more expensive versus market expectation. (but not impossible, just undesirable).
A sensible balance may end up being Newmont take profits from Hav for first 2-3 years of Hav high grade ore to cover future decommissioning cost of the portions of Telfer that it retains following a sale. Then, sell to GGP the parts of Telfer processing facility GGP requires to process Havieron ore and take the decommissioning hit on the remainder of Telfer plant and mine.
It looks odd for Newmont to choose not take *any* profits from Hav in the first 2-3 years when it’s so close to operational ramp up given the length of time a typical mine takes to get to the start line. Especially so given Newcrest, not Newmont, have sunk most of the development cost to get to 3mtpa, and the development risk discount is reducing day by day.
JamesP21: ''Pete, you are a FUD merchant, I know you from Telegram days. You’re not a nice person.''
That's pretty funny.
The Telegram days where I was one of very few voices suggesting caution in the 20p's and 30p's? Where I was one of very few trying to inject some realism, balance and expectation management in the face of the outrageous hype of hydro and the lunatics on that group and on here who followed a junior gold explorer like it was a favorite football team or a religion, rather than simply an unemotional investment supposed to grow their wealth?
Now here we are, 2 years later. And who was more correct. Those like me and others who suggested lower market valuations for Havieron (although still too high) - who grew their wealth by seeing the forest beyond the trees and realising it was time to sell high?
Or the rampers, cult believers, sit-on-hands crew and 'media content creators' - Who had their wealth destroyed by buying too high or phenomenal gains wiped out by holding too long?
Yet you think I'm 'a bad person' because I urged caution and realism around an overhyped share price :))) Says it all really. About some people's ability to deceive themselves when they get emotionally attached, and which ends up with them being played.
Note that I'm not suggesting selling now. I'm not strongly considering buying either - still too many uncertainties around the possibility of needing extra capex, timeline to ramp-up, Newmont's intentions, and overall global market sentiment. Thing could get very positive quite quickly for GGP if you take the optimistic view around FS/DtM/FID, timeline to production, insto's, ASX effect, gold price, market sentiment, Capex. Or they could not, as per market view currently. But I think the risk/reward looks much better down here than it did in the 20s and 30s. Risk/reward the framework for making investing decisions. The framework built by taking information from as many independent sources as possible - not just 'bamps' - including ones that suggest outcomes that conflict with your desired outcome. For e.g. acknowledging the existence of suggestions of possible delays to production ramp-up and weighing up the probability of that coming to pass. Ultimately trying to avoid biasing yourself either way negatively or positively. It's all very boring and not like following a crowd. The approach doesn't sit well on forums which is why they're best ignored unless someone is prepared to be unpopular.
Good spot Starbright ref the table showing CO2 emissions table and start of ore processing.
Now all we need is to work out a linkage between a table showing impact on the night parrot and Greatland's forward earnings.
James, I'm a holder not a FUD merchant - I don't have an angle except wanting to understand as best I can the probable outcomes. Occasionally I air my views on here - if you engage brain you'll see it's only 'a coincidence' to you because I only air my views when there are things happening, quelle surprise that someone would post only when events are unfolding. Admittedly I sold the huge majority of my holding a long time ago at approximately 5X the current sp - I'm typing from the house it bought me for cash. If I'd held on like many who listen to the paddy's and hydro's of this world then I might be typing from my campervan. That's opportunity cost for you, as many here will be experiencing from not selling. But I still hold a small chunk of GGP to build the extension if GGP get through the lassonde curve intact and not terminally damaged. Although Filo/NGEX/Adriatic and Alphamin will pay for that if GGP doesn't. :)
Yes Zoros, I know the expected timeline - as you say we're led to expect the decline will hit ore around start of 2024, start stockpiling, and go into commercial production H2 2024. No argument from me about our expectations.
However if you're not asking questions about an official Newcrest document that explicitly says underground operations won't commence until 'late 2024' - implying a delay to current expected date of commercial production - then you're a far more credulous person then me. This isn't my first rodeo btw.. miners' schedules slip ALL the time, it's a slow and painful process and many miners fail to execute as planned, if that wasn't already apparent!
To KISS - if you aren't wary of possible indications delays, you simply aren't paying attention.
While there’s plenty of documentation saying first ore 2024 H2 (aka early calendar 2024), there’s now documentation dated March this year saying late 2024. Ignore it if it makes you feel better. I’d prefer SD clarified his expectation for first ore, in no uncertain terms.
In reply to Toby1967: ''If the underground development is not starting until late 2024 that would suggest first ore out and gold for GGP will not be until 2025 which is up to year later than a lot of people are expecting . Is this your understanding or has Shaun advised different from your own correspondence?''
As you suggest, this is a crucial bit of information and needs clarifying by SD.
''On your point 2 the blending of Telfer and Havieron ore.
Telfers Ore now the grades are very low with little copper, it can be stock piled leached very cheap.
To mix it with Havieron would dilute the high grade which is pointless. Plus Havieron has a bismuth content so will probably be blended at the ROM stockpile before it reaches Telfer.''
Bamps, it's a minor point and not of importance for Hav/GGP, but to my point about blending Telfer ore - see page 23 of the amended Telfer-Haverion Gold Mine Proposal:
''In the event that only Havieron ore is processed, only one train of the Telfer Processing Plant would be operated. Telfer ore may still be processed via toll treatment or via blending.''
Doesn't mean they will but they might, and that they do consider blending an option.
With respect, I'll place more weight on information they put in black and white in their own proposals over what you think does or doesn't make sense, although I also appreciate your views.
Hi Bamps.
''To produce no ore in 2027 as shown in that table is just not right , which miner would have a Decline looking at ore and not take it out.''
I know, that's why I questioned their timescale assumptions. Because they don't make sense in a normal operating scenario.
To answer your rhetorical question above:
'A miner that was attempting to acquire more of a huge asset, on the cheap, by attempting to financially handicap its JV partner through go-slow with commercial start-up of said huge asset'.
I sincerely hope that won't be the case, but it is a risk to be cognisant of in any JV where there's a financial power imbalance. Newmont can easily absorb a downturn by Telfer losing money for a couple of years, GGP can't easily absorb that. If you were to say it's unlikely I'd agree, but plenty of people were expressing over the last two years how it was unlikely that Newcrest would want to obfuscate and delay. What's happened - under the leadership of Biswas they've been shown to have obfuscated and delayed. Lets hope Newmont don't, but the truth is there are no guarantees they won't with a big prize like 30% of Hav at stake.
Some very simplified takeaways from reading the valuation report for 'Telfer(inclusive of Haerion':
1. 'Telfer (inclusive of Havieron' in reality means Havieron.
2. The negative value of rehabilitating Telfer's open pit and related operations has been included in valuing 'Telfer (inclusive of Havieron). Therefore Greatland's 30% share should be 30% share of the valuation PLUS the estimated cost for rehabilitation of Telfer open pit. Without bothering to go into Newcrest's annual report and balance sheets, I don't know the contingency cost for Telfer rehabilitation but would guess it to be in the low hundred millions$ ? Possibly reduced, due to the underground @ Telfer remaining viable for longer due to blending ore with Havieron's.
3. The sense check in resource ounces per dollar is very low as noted - due as stated to risk discount for a development stage project. However it's one of the lower risk developments out there. This will change more in line with market average $/ounce (or higher than average) as soon as a FS, FID and decision to mine is released. The multiple will increase again on first production. None of those milestones are far in the future. See Adriatic re-rate for example of development stage company approaching production (November). Adriatic a classic lassonde curve example with a tier-1 project increasing in size as they approach first production - same as GGP's situation. except 100% owned so not subject to a psychopathic partner.
4. MRE is out of date by 2 years. Expect .5 - .75 greater size in resources and reserves - with proportionally more in reserves. Thus a greater than .5 to .75 increase in value as more $/ounce at their $200/oz valuation versus their discounted $50/oz for resources.
5. Ebitda multiple of 4 is super low as noted. This is due to development stage multiple discount. As above this will increase to industry averages as per Cadia as Hav gets a FS, FID and DtM. And once again when it reaches first production.
6. The negative coming down the road will be somewhat inflated costs but would expect these to be manageable.
7. All above obviously points to multiples of the $500-600m valuation as they must know but can't say. How many multiples can be debated forever- mid teens sp is still my expectation shortly following production.
One uncertainty for me is why they seem to imply a delayed start for hav (FY27 - 2026?). That would be a way to cripple GGP if Newcrest wanted to turn it into an endurance test.
Not sure I agree with Costa’s tone, or agree with his take on the technicals any more than I would various other different opinions out there - he has an opinion like me and he’s been proven over time to sometimes make good calls and sometimes make bad calls, like me.
It’s a subjective art not a hard science, anyone offering TA opinions should make it clear it’s just their subjective take with a bit of logic to back up where there’s strength and weakness, support and resistance etc. but it’s far from watertight it.
If you disagree then a half hour spent listening to experienced chartists with diametrically opposing views of the same share and the same chart should make this clear.
What I take from the TA is it’s just hints and probabilities either way. My view is there are plenty of hints building for a turnaround here, but it’s far from certain.
The other thing I’d take from the TA is it gives better than average odds for short-term trading signals.. which many have done well out of with this share including me.
Well, price didn't hold above the 200-day, and spiked down to the lower arc @ around 6.8 where it found support. It's back in the long-term down-trending channel. But it still looks like a turnaround to me.
Oversold on the daily timescale.
On a weekly timescale it's forming a bullish divergence if price goes any lower than 6.5. There's a clear divergence on the rsi.
Monthly timescale, a clear bullish divergence, despite lower price. This all points to a change of direction but the short-term daily price movement in the short time while we wait can be brutal. Worst case imo is the fib retracement .886 level at 5.95p - this is a .886 retracement of the uptrend that began in January 2020 @ 1.8p up to 38p in Dec 2020. If it retraced all the way to the .886 level I'd expect capitulation / and heavy buying.
End of the month close will be interesting to see. Price significantly broke through the 12-month moving average for first time in a couple of years earlier this month. Needs to close above approx 8.2 to close a month above the 12-month for first time in 2 years. Maybe not achievable this month, but it's showing signs of trying at least.
One other factor to throw into the pot that Starbright and others are outlining is:
Telfer does not become worthless without Havieron If the price of gold does what everyone wants the price of gold to do.
The irony should be obvious here- if PoG continues its rise as it looks likely then while that's obviously favourable, it's also potentially unfavourable in the context of if NCM/NEM decide they want to play a very cynical game because Telfer was now eeking out profits again for another x-years. Hopefully the April '24 clause scuppers that move, it looks like it should. But people talking about PoG rising on one hand and Telfer being unprofitable on the other should consider informing each hand of what the other one is doing :)
Price has now broken the 200-day moving average intraday (the MA currently at 8.40p). And is now well established above that long-term downward-sloping resistance line (will become support?). Needs to close out a day, and then a week, above the 200-day, which would also likely then offer some support. Bit of resistance around 8.5 - 8.9p, if it clears 8.9 then to me it looks like clear air to around 12.6p
Nicely put Skyship. But we need the acechsers of this world to sell to into strength. Long may they remain as they are.
Had a quick look on advfn but I just don't like that site (don't like this one very much either!). Looked at Wycoff, had a vague awareness of it without knowing the detail, it's another interesting theory to learn more about.
With the April monthly close @ 8.04 price didn't break the 12-month moving average @ 8.50p. (or the 200-day @ 8.40p). But it has now broken the 2+ year downtrend line on a monthly close (provided price opens on Tuesday above 7.65p, which it should barring anything weird).
Price is now in a narrow band between support and overhead resistance, with resistance at the 200-day moving average @ 8.40p and 12 month moving average will be @ around 8.2p when we re-open next Tuesday. Support is the 50-day moving average @ 7.70p. There are also 2 arcs, depending where you place them, acting as support since 2021, currently at around 7.65p and a lower one at 6.80p. If price was to break below the 50-day support then it might make another spike down to one of these levels.
There's not much room/time left on this model for price to range sideways, above the 50-day support but below the 200 day/12 month resistances. So May is the month GGP either finally breaks and holds above the 12 month and the 200-day moving averages for first time in 2.5 years, or it drops back below support. If it drops, then a spike to one of the arcs possible.
Other indicator: volume has risen slightly over the last 8 weeks to be higher than average. RSI turned up over the last couple of months despite price going lower. MACD-H on an uptrend.
Overall looks to be consolidating a chunky base between 7p and 9p. Slowly turning like an oil tanker.