Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Tiggerman - It's 110M shares at today's price. By the time we get to Monday week, SP may be somewhat different. They are required to invest an amount (circa £22M) - that will get them however many shares they can get.
ATB and SOYH
RA
That's good enough for me.
Can we get back to the Scottish debate now? :)
Great news, ATB and SOYH.
RA
Sorry thread title was
"How high do we realistically expect this to go?"
RA
Speedy - This was discussed late last week under this thread. Criteria for GDX is same as GDXJ but Mkt Cap needs to be $750Mn. Dpending on how and when you do the sums, it's not inconceivable for this rebalancing but probs not. Take a look at the thread as one poster did all the difficult mathematics.
ATB & SOYH
RA
Interesting discussion on how many shares will be bought if we're included in the ETF. Looks like it is now a monetary value rather than a number of shares. However, if our share price has increased between rebalancing an purchasing, this would only increase our weighting (along with any other SP increase) in three month's time. Hopefully another (smaller) boost then.
ATB and SOYH
RA
Hopefully Gold - Thanks. Agreed that Atip and Rio own (or lease) the tenements between Hav and Telfer. This "issue" would surely need to be resolved whatever the mode of transport for the various commodities. I'm sure that mining companies have had similar issues in the past and have reached some form of access agreement - therefore that would not be my biggest concern at the mo. Identifying the optimal mode of transportation and location for processing would be at the front of my mind in the initial planning for Hav.
ATB and SOYH
RA
From my non-mining background, I've been pondering the issue of distance between Telfer and Havieron. Havieron has the raw material whilst Telfer has the facilities and energy and water for processing. Either you need to transport lots of raw materials to the processing plant or you need to transport energy and water to the raw materials (or a combination of both). We've seen that NCM are considering a conveyor from Hav to Telfer for the raw materials but whilst they do that, would they not be sensible to incorporate a gas pipeline and water pipeline. This would then enable them to perform partial processing at Hav and therefore save on the transportation of millions of tonnes of ore in one direction and huge amounts of energy and water the other. There will be a fine balance and a most economical position to be identified which would need to incorporate an estimate of ore to be mined along with the processing needs, estimated life of the mine and capital costs. Just a thought while we wait for (lots of) news next week. Perhaps Bamps and Paddy (and others with mining or engineering knowledge) have a view of a three commodity service line between Telfer and Havieron.
ATB and SOYH
RA
To quote (possibly WC Fields), "I’ll probably spend most of it on alcohol, women, and gambling. The rest of it I’ll waste."
The question however is important, in these very strange days, we should all be considering how we best protect any gains from tax first and then the potential of banks going bust with only £85K protected. At my stage of life, I would be looking to distribute anything more than I need for a comfortable life to my three children who could make much better use of it than I can. If we get to where I think we could, then I might be able to help them substantially clear down their mortgages.
ATB and SOYH
RA
I know that this might be considered a ramp, however, whilst we're all focussing on the potential entry of GGP into the GDXJ, I beleive that the criteria for entry into GDX is similar to that of the GDXJ, only MCap must be $750 US. I'm looking for others' thoughts on our potential entry into GDX. Grateful for your views.
ATB and SOYH
RA
Quick google search says no.
RA
"a three-month average-daily-trading volume of at least 1.0m USD at the current review and also at the previous two reviews"
In my mind, this requirement can only mean the average daily trading volume for the complete three month period, it cannot mean the the average daily trading volume for each of the previous three months.
If they wanted it to mean monthly averages, they would have used different words and, logically, the fund is rebalanced every three months so they would be looking at figures which cover the whole quarter and not individual parts of each quarter.
AIMHO.
Regards
ATB & SOYH
RA
Interview with GH a few days ago is here:
https://www.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcasts/5f3cde54b14d872626439287/greatland-gold-commencement-of-drilling-at-scallywag-prospect
3 minutes in. "probably 6-8 weeks before we get first set of results back from the drilling and possibly a bit earlier for that for the electro-magnetic surveys"
"we will keep investors informed"
ATB & SOYH
RA
Bully 1985 - In your post at 0910 you suggest that news will be sparse as we are getting close to a close period relating to the final accounts. I'm not sure that a close period would stop news flow as the company is required to continue reporting any news which might affect the share price. The purpose of a close period is in relation to insider dealings. Therefore, I would not expect newsflow to be inhibitted due to entering the close period.
Regards
RA
Thanks DGR1980. SO he could have been selling for quite some time, actually passed through the threshold some weeks ago but only needed to report the fact once the overall sell was complete - is that correct? The TR1 specifically asks when the threshold was crossed so a little misleading in my mind. Hey ho.
Thanks again for clarification.
RA
Interesting thought MattyBoy regarding how Beetham disposed of his shares. On the TR1, the date that the threshold was crossed (ie 3% I think) was stated as 14 Aug. Which means that between 14 Aug (last Friday) he was able to dump all of his shareholding (down to zero). This would suggest that he has not sold through the open market but has made some form of arranged sale. It would also suggest that he must have sold to more than one buyer (if all went to one buyer, we would need to see a corresponding TR1 from the buyer advising of new holding).
That is unless I am completely wrong in my understadning of the market which is a distinct possibility.
Has Betham sold his 4% to 2 or more significant shareholders who wish to remain under the radar?
ATB
RA
JerseyCrew - I agree that FMV at this point would be filled with so many unknowns that neither NCM or GGP would have any confidence in it. Someone said on the board this weekend that Hav has behaved in a way that was not expected when the phases of the JV were defined - it appears to keep growing. Creating FMV until the boundaries and grade are completely defined would not serve any purpose IMHO - the FMV is only required to enable NCM to purchase an additional 5%. The MRE and PFS, however are required to enable the positioning of the decline - this is why NCM is keen to get to MRE (or inferred) so they can produce PFS and start decline. All IMHO.
Regards and ATB
RA
Hmmm. Any fair market valuation of Hav will have risk incorporated which should reduce the further along that Hav is developed, it will also incorporate the fact that the gold is still in the ground and so will incorporate an element for the purchaser's return on capital. FMV will not simply be the quntity of gold in the ground (as specified in MRE) multiplied by POG. The JV agreement obliges GGP to sell 5% of Hav at completion of Ph 4 if NCM offer GGP FMV for that 5%, any less and GGP do not have to sell.
In your original post, you also suggested that NCM would want all of GGP for less than FMV of 30% of Hav. I'm not convinced that GGP would even let 30% of Hav go for less than 30% FMV of Hav. They certainly wouldn't sell the whole company for less than FMV of 30% of Hav - why would they? In any case, this type of deal would need to be presented to shareholders and they certainly wouldn't agree.
Regards
RA
Goldenl - Not sure that I follow your logic. Once Ph 4 of farm in is complete, NCM have the opportunity of purchasing 5% of Hav at FMV of Hav (not Market Cap of GGP). If they wanted to purchase the remainder of Hav (ie 25%), then they would need to offer and GH/CB (plus BoD) would need to consider and accept. GGP is only obliged to accept an offer for 5% of Hav if NCM make an offer at FMV once Ph 4 is complete.
One thing for sure is that GGP BoD would not accept an offer for the whole of GGP which is less than Fair Market Value of just one of its assets. If NCM offer less than Hav FMV for whole of GGP, GGP would reject and GGP would retain 25% of Hav and move onward to Scallywag etc.
Jambo - Was thinking the same myself but there are so many things that could happen once NCM reach the magical 70%, ie they complete the scope of the farm in under the JV.
1. NCM and GGP commission an independent to determine FMV for 5% and the value is too high for NCM so they don't buy the 5%.
2. NCM and GGP commission an independent to determine FMV for 5% and the value is too low for GGP but GGP is obliged to sell under the terms of the JV.
3. Newcrest don't offer for the 5% but want to press forward with mining but GGP have difficulty funding their 30%........does this slow down the mining activity?
4. (Jambo scenario) Newcrest don't offer the additional 5% and slow things down to get GGP into a cash-strapped position. I know that GH has said that he will borrow money on open markets so doesn't envisage getting cash strapped.
There are many more scenarios and plenty more variables which could affect how both NCM and GGP behave - Price of Gold, SIze of MRE, Telfer Mineral Reserves, Scallywag results.
We have to hope and expect that GH and SB do not play silly B**gers. It's to both their benefit for the relationship to remain good. I wouldn't like to predict how the next 12 months will play out.
I find myself glued to the BB to see the next development/activity. When you expect the share price to rise, it falls and vice versa. Surely, it cannot stay this low for much longer.
ATB
RA
MH01 - Not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. I fully recognise that finding gold is not easy and that GGP may not have another Hav. However, the beauty of GGP is its size and ability to be agile. Once we start having GH and CB focussing on annual dividends and the management of the JV, I feel that GGP will lose some of its magic. The purpose of retaining a proportion of Hav is to enable the company to carry on prospecting in a controlled manner and pace without any risk of looking for further cash from shareholders. Indeed, any surplus cash from the Hav JV could even be used in the future to reduce shares through share buyback. GGP needs to retain its character as an exploration company. All assuming that a Fair Market Value can be agreed. Any special dividend can be used by shareholders to do what suits their own situation - buy more GGP or invest in a dividend bearing company.
ATB
RA