Member Info for Professor1

Hi Paddy If I am not mistaken, you need to times it by 2.71 to get the total tonnage. In this case it will give 609m tonnes as opposed to 396m tonnes and 1219m grams or 39m ounces. i.e. $0.64 or £ 0.48 per share once proven.

Hi Mickey1122 As discussed yesterday, there was no doubt about the potential in Havieron. As mentioned to Tiburn will try and put some figures later thus evening but as mentioned in previous post (extract copied below), the tonnage volume seems huge enough to dwarf EG strike that was talked about: ("The prospects for GGP seem highly favourable considering we have not one but several projects. In my previous post, I considered the estimated tonnage of Ernest Giles project dmbased on strike of 3km × 1km × 60m mentioned on GGP site and thought that was enormous. However, consider the dataset on the GGP site in respect of Havieron project which states " Results of forward modelling have defined a primary body approximately 600m × 600m with a depth extent from 400m to 900m below surface resulting in potential volume of 240, 000, 000 cubic meters and an estimated mass of more than 650, 000, 000 tonnes. " And based on historic drill results, mineralisation peaking at 15.4 g / tonne gold ". This in my mind, IF PROVEN, would dwarf the strike talked about on Ernest Giles")

Hi Tiburn Thanks and certainly do rough figures later this evening similar to those on EG - I will copy here that one again for the benefit if newcomers on this bb.

Hi Mickey1122 Apologies - your last post had suddenly disappeared from my screen but moments later reappeared

Mike Sorry its there

Hi Mick1122 I thought I just saw your response but its no longer in the chain below. On my first point, I wonder if its worth obtaining clarity from GH.

I was reading the recent Q&A by Dale Benton appearing in Mining Global on 21 June 2018 and a couple of points took my attention: (1) When discussing where Greatland Gold was with Ernest Giles, Mr Baxter talked about the drill aspects and mentioned " it really suggests that we're onto something big". " That's when we got some interest from some of the larger parties around the world, INCLUDING Newmont". So, who were those other larger parties ? I cannot recall these other parties mentioned ever. (2)When discussing forging relationships/ partnerships with leading companies in the industry, Mr Heddle stated " but obviously we're always in conversations with various parties about ways we could cooperate together". It is my feeling that the various parties referred to would not exclude the leading mining company with which GGP has had dealings with recently. Note the words " could cooperate together". Was the inference here to Newmont? It is my belief that the prospects here look great. However, my favourite bet is the Haverion project and I would not be surprised if this drives GGP into relationship with leading miners.

What a fantastic day. Although Ernest Giles is still GGP's flagship project, I still think that the results on the Haverion project MAY turn out to be the main jewel in the crown. Good luck all.

Tiburn Agree- that indeed speaks volume. As someone mentioned here, need to have patience and I think GH has said time and time again, he wishes to increase shareholder value - the JV route but I assume not at any expense. Imagine if a prospective JV partner, in return for carrying out all of the exploration work, wanted say 80% of the project. I think GH is a shrewed businessman and he knows whats exactly out there and just needs to prove up. The prospects for GGP seem highly favourable considering we have not one but several projects. In my previous post, I considered the estimated tonnage of Ernest Giles project dmbased on strike of 3km × 1km × 60m mentioned on GGP site and thought that was enormous. However, consider the dataset on the GGP site in respect of Havieron project which states " Results of forward modelling have defined a primary body approximately 600m × 600m with a depth extent from 400m to 900m below surface resulting in potential volume of 240, 000, 000 cubic meters and an estimated mass of more than 650, 000, 000 tonnes. " And based on historic drill results, mineralisation peaking at 15.4 g / tonne gold ". This in my mind, IF PROVEN, would dwarf the strike talked about on Ernest Giles. I have always wondered if Newmont wanted us on the cheap but found their match in GH

Apologies it did not all come across on one page so the rest is shown below: =612 m grams At 31.1 g per 1 ounce = 20 m ounces At 10% strike = 2m ounces At 25% strike = 5m ounces

Hi all I think the economics for GGP projects look fantastic. This is based on the grades of gold mentioned on GGP site from past data which by any stretch of the imagination look very promising when you compare against an open pit mine grades where 2g per tonne are viewed as HIGH GRADE for bulk tonnage mining and 10g per tonne as truly EXCEPTIONAL. (Compare this with an underground mine which is not relevant in GGP's case where 5g per tonne is usually considered economically viable and 30g per tonne regarded as high grade). I have tried to see this POTENTIAL by taking the 2g per tonne and looking at the current gold price per ounce of $1300 and all total costs of production of $900 ( this latter being at the higher end of the costs scale for some of the more inefficient mines compared to costs as low as $600 for efficient mines and therefore I am being prudent). To be even more prudent, I am going to take the 2g per tonne and discount this to a recovery rate of only 75% ( i.e. 1.5g per tonne in example 1) and down to only 60% recovery ( i.e. 1.2g per tonne in example 2). Based on the market price of $1300 and production costs of $900, the figures per gram become $42 and $29 respectively. Therefore, the figures based on recovery rates of 1.5g per tonne and 1.2g per tonne can be shown as follows: EXAMPLE 1(75% × 2g= 1.5g Recovery) Revenue = $62 Costs = $(29) Operating Profit =$33 The recovery rate in this example is 2 and 1/2 times the economic cut off grade. Now lets look at the second example where the recovery rate is reduced down to 60%. EXAMPLE 2 (60% × 2g = 1.2g Recovery). Revenue = $51 Costs = $(29) Operating Profit = $22 The recovery rate is around 2 times the economic cut off grade. If I am not mistaken, some of the grades of upto 10g per tonne mentioned on GGP site in respect of other projects e.g. one next to Telfer mine, if achieved, would be quite exceptional in my view. There is also no risk of Royalty taxes being hiked in Western Australia as the Bill which was being debated at the time Newmont were doing the work on GGP was thrown out in the Parliament I believe in October 2017. Any hike would have had severe adverse consequencies on the recovery rates and operating margins. I think a quick recap of one of the strike areas of the greenstone belt mentioned on GGP site would be useful and the numbers are quite mind boggling. But, if Kalgoorlie is anything to go by then these numbers are by no means surprising in my view. If the strike of 3km × 1km × 60 meters were to produce the 2g per tonne then the number of ounces I believe would be as follows. Of course the 2g per tonne cannot be evenly spread throughout the strike range and so I have adjusted the final number by taking only say 10 % or 25% of the strike rate. The above strike area gives 180million cubic meters At 1 cubic meter = 1.7 tonne gives 306m tonnes At 2g per tonnes × 306m tonnes

Hi Silas I cannot get access to the article you have attached but if it was to do with the Western Australian state wanting to lift royalty taxes then this Bill was effectively killed (reuters.com on business news 10 October 2017) after Liberal Party members of parliament voted to block the measure in the state's upper house.

Hi Apple Agree and thats what I can see. Dave has precisely done that i.e.. tried to quickly twist and dodge away from the facts. There will be some on this board who would probably have gone along what he had said without doing further research.

Dave You state that "we have a contract with a German company called MERCK KGaA who are the world's largest manufacturer of LCD crystals and pigments and have a healthcare division which only makes up 1/15th of their turnover". THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE POSTED. I have just been looking at the Consolidated Financial statements of the Merck KGaA Group for the year ended 31 December 2017. The Group total Net Sales amounted to Euro 15,024 Million. Of this, the Healthcare Net Sales were Euro 6,999 Million (41% of Group Sales), Life Science were Euro 5,882 Million (38% of Group Sales) and Performance Materials which would include LCD crystals and pigments amounted to Euro 2,446 Million( 16% of Group Sales). As can be seen from the above facts taken from their recent Consolidated Financial statements, Healthcare sales is by far the largest of the three business sectors contrary to your statement. Please can to you justify your figures.

Hi Apple and Yorkshire Many thanks for this helpful info.

Hi Apple Could pyc be ripe for merger / takeover?