Member Info for Professor1

Hi Woody You are right. I also suspect (and I also very much hope) that GH may surprise us with early first drill hole results on EG

Sorry should have added on Havieron

Mickey/ Tiburn People seem to have reacted adversely to the drill results of holes 2 and 4. However, what one needs to bear in mind is that these two holes may not be representative of the extent and continuity of the whole ore body and are probably not even part of the bigger ore body. DEPOSITS CAN BE OF ANY IMAGINABLE SHAPE AND ORIENTATION. If these were part of the main ore body with lower grades compared to hole one results, then it seems to suggest that this may be a precursor of a massive deposit which GH has now embarked on proving with the additional 10 drills.

Hi Geo Good to hear from you and look forward to reading your posts. Thanks.

Hi Tiburn True these are really high grades and I believe that is why GH is carrying out the follow up 10 drills which hopefully will establish the correct direction and extent of the high grade area. It may be that GH / CB will make necessary adjustments in relation to the spacing between the holes with the new 10 drills planned. Hoping that the actual numbers are far better than what I tried to sum up but I have no doubt in the potential here.

Hi Burmese Looking at just the first drill hole results of Havieron where the grades were extraordinary at various depth intervals, if one were to convert each of those intervals into a standard 2g per tonne, we get roughly 600 meters of depth. If the same anomalies were to only extend in length and width in the same level of grades found in hole one for only 250 meters then I believe we have the following situation: =37.5million cubic meters =102million tonnage =203million grams =6.5 million ounces The next 10 drill holes would be very interesting I think and I am hoping that a mere 250 × 250 meters compared to the original 1000 × 1000 meters quoted on GGP would suffice if those grades extend as discussed above.

Early first drill hole result in EG?

Hi Prospector Agree entirely

Very well put it Dim. I have quick question but cannot find the answer to it. It relates to the acquisition of Havieron project on 26 September 2016 by GGP from Pacific Trends Resources Pty Ltd. GGP had paid A$25000 in cash and issued, as consideration, 65,490,000 ordinary shares of 0.1 pence each (approximate value A$225,000). The second payment, by the issuance of an additional 145,530,000 Ordinary shares will occur if the licence area is the subject of a completed bankable feasibility study is AND a decision to mine occurs at Havieron.The additional fully paid shares are to be issued within 30 days after the decision to mine is made by GGP. Do we know how many shares Pacific Trends Resources Pty Ltd hold in GGP?

Just going through the Paterson Project Aeromagnetics and Regional Targets map on GGP site (map 4 under Paterson Region) with GGP tenaments highlighted in bold line. Interesting to note is this statement: "Following review of Regional geophysical and geochemical data over the Paterson project, approximately FIFTY IOCG TARGETS have been identified in the broader region, WITH AROUND HALF IN GROUND HELD BY GREATLAND". These targets are highlighted in red blobs under greatland licences.

Remember the wording in the Global Mining interview, GGP had interest from other majors INCLUDING Newmont

Hi Itsaduster Thats why I believe we walked rather than NM last time round. However, what we are now wanting to do is to prove up and come to some sort of " compromise".

Hi Tiburn / Dim Agree and we should see good steady increase in SP as we progress with the projects. On EG, which has excellent potential, I have been listening / reading to all previous interviews / videos and a couple of statements made by GH and CB in the Global Mining interview I think appear to be highly significant. I did post these earlier but seem not to appear on the bb so apologies if you have already seen it. These were: 1) "That's when we got some interest from some of the larger parties around the world INCLUDING Newmont". 2)" We are always in conversations with various parties about ways we could COOPERATE TOGETHER". Was the reference in (2) above to Newmont? Did we walk away instead of Newmont the first time round for various reasons? We know that junior explorers when negotiating with majors do have a lot of conflicting interests namely a desire to advance the project as quickly as possible and increase shareholder value (which GH has been talking about a lot), price for the JV in return for major funding the EG project and the share of the project which the Major takes in return etc etc. In my opinion only, I believe Newmont are still very much in this game with GGP and the statement by NM " not at this time" I interprete to mean if GGP wanted higher price they need to do more work proving but by the way at the new site this time round NM have pointed out.

Hi Tiburn You have laid it out spot on. Great potential here.

Talking about the depth at which the drilling campaigns are conducted by GGP and finding gold, these appear excellent when you compare how other Australia's majors are embarking on digging even deeper. "Gwalia mine near Leonora have announced plans to enable mining to advance more than 2km below the surface". "Northern Star Resources has begun deepest diamond drilling on its new discovery called Zodiac and hailed as a game -changer of enormous proportions where the drilling will take about two months to complete and reach more than 3km below the surface which would better the previous Australian record of 3011.5m at Kalgoorlie-Boulder's world famous zsuper Pit gold mine in 2005". It is also said that "While breaking the 3km barrier is rare in Australia, it is nothing compared with Africa where 5000 metre holes are not uncommon because difference in geology". "The mine owners, ASX listed, St Barbara have also revealed plans to dramatically change the mining method......plan is to introduce hydraulic hoisting - a technique where gold - bearing ore is crushed underground into a sand-like material and pumped to the surface as a slurry........the move away from trucking is set to extend the mine life until 2031..."

Hi Tiburn I agree on GH/ mining industry relationship. I don't know whether I am reading too much into it but the GH statement made during Mining Global interview seems quite significant as I mentioned in my previous post but to recap for the benefit of others, he stated " but obviously we're always in conversations with various parties about ways we could cooperate together". Note the words " could cooperate together". I wonder if this is from : (A)the fallout with Newmont (perhaps on price or alternatively not so much on the price but more so on GH's desire to advance and monetise the project as quickly as possible against NM's last in the queue priorities.) OR (B) Lost opportunity of a tie up on EG with some of the other majors who had shown interest. We know this from the statement made by CB in his interview with Mining Global when talking about EG where he stated " That's when we got some interest from some of the larger parties around the world, INCLUDING Newmont". We will never come to know who were those other larger parties.

Happy So its the grades that matter most and it seems like GGP has those higher grades to command price towards the higher range.

Hi Happy Vancouver based Cipher Research Ltd did some evaluation for price of gold in the ground. They have some charts on their site that show that " 56% of 253 takeovers occurred at a median of $40 / ounce and 80% were below $90/ ounce. Some 20% ranged from $90 to $180. Well worth a read on their site.

Hi Happy I believe there was a research chart posted here, I will will see if I can find it again - this showed most deals which had low grades of gold being conducted at $49 range whilst some with high grades fell above $100.

Hi Paddy Even if you discount this further to a recovery rate of say 25%, you still get to some 10m ounces. i.e. 12p share in my view and all that in one project alone.