Member Info for sicilian_kan

Getting closer to my price target of 3.18p.

As requested a table of the gram metres for the holes using Keith Barron's classifications:

HAD049, announced today, is in the top five drill holes at Havieron.

5 of the 15 top drill holes at Havieron were announced today.

6 out of 8 drill holes announced today were exceptional.

That said, what is important are Figures 1 and 2 in the news release that show the sheer scale of the high grade zone.

HAD005 1571.556 (exceptional)
HAD006 1196.7152 (exceptional)
HAD014 1014.378 (exceptional)
HAD021 989.3252 (exceptional)
**HAD049 866.888 (exceptional)
HAD034 926.9176 (exceptional)
HAD017 892.6632 (exceptional)
HAD020 800.3566 (exceptional)
HAD018 771.4336 (exceptional)
HAD013 685.6064 (exceptional)
HAD036 608.5674 (exceptional)
**HAD029 685.5438 (exceptional)
**HAD042 657.3984 (exceptional)
**HAD044 612.148 (exceptional)
**HAD022 575.0568 (exceptional)
HAD028 589.9796 (exceptional)
HAD012 530.812 (exceptional)
HAD023 504.398 (exceptional)
HAD025 435.9498 (exceptional)
HAD035 402.9924 (exceptional)
**HAD045 377.2664 (exceptional)
HAD032 362.4184 (exceptional)
HAD026 357.902 (exceptional)
HAD001 395.428 (exceptional)
HAD011 245.018 (exceptional)
HAD008 231.552 (exceptional)
HAD031 175.421 (pretty gosh darn good)
HAD015 132.016 (pretty gosh darn good)
HAD007 125.603 (pretty gosh darn good)
HAD003 105.56 (pretty gosh darn good)
HAD009 103.426 (pretty gosh darn good)
**HAD038 90.8928 (good)
HAD004 27.401
**HAD047 19.8
HAD002 18.7354
HAD033 18.2408
HAD010 0
HAD016 0
HAD019 0

See here for a link to the diagrams I refer to at Figure 1 and 2 in the GGP release:

hTTps://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200311-GGP-Announcement-Havieron-Update.pdf

The most interesting part of the Newcrest release was the 3D model diagram at Figure 2, showing the 19 high grade holes intersecting with a massive plunging high grade zone. If you take these 19 drill holes that make the high grade shape on the diagram, and if you look the overhead lengths in Figure 1, you will see that:

The average grade of is 8.2 g/t gold equivalent.

The average width (not true width) is 38.8m.

The depth plummets 600m and is open.

I make the length 725m by measuring the overhead section highlighted in purple at Figure 1 and this is open at both ends.

It is a reasonable assumption to make as Paddy has suggested that this high grade loop, having now gone round by 180 degrees, will complete the circle, i.e. there is double that there. In any event it is open at both ends and this ignores, as I say the bulk tonnage.

I think there is enough evidence now to say that this is now nailed on for somewhere in the 10-20m oz range. Not in the first JORC assessment, by any stretch of the imagination, but in due course. See the broker's target for the current estimate, which should now get an upgrade.

Hi Stuart, a good post. I'll respond when I have a bit of time today / tomorrow.

newtothisgame2, I remain of the view that there have been truly exceptional drill results here and that there will be a mine at Havieron. The first point is unarguable and it would be staggering if the latter were not true. The only difference between me and others at the moment is in terms of valuation:

1. I start with the broker's recently upgraded 5.5m. It may well be much more than that in due course - some might even say likely. But I prefer to start from a low base and to be surprised to the upside rather than to start from a high base and to be surprised to the downside. The former gains me money and the latter risks losing me money. Different investors have different styles and that is mine.

2. I start with a price of $100/oz in the ground whereas others start with $200/oz. We really should be able to debate value/oz without accusations flying around about the motives of others. $100/oz in the ground, for a company still exploring and not yet in production, is in the history of mining takeovers a much higher figure than average.

No one is stating that anyone would deliberately understate or overstate a resource. That is a mathematical calculation based upon the drilling results.

Let me put things another way. It is always worth looking at when JV partners are aligned and when they are not.

In this case, GGP and NC are aligned in terms of getting a feasibility study done. It is clearly in the best of both of their interests to do this.

It is perhaps obvious though, that their interests are not necessarily aligned when looking at the acquisition cost of the 5%.

Once Newcrest have spent the monies required on the DFS to earn 70%, they have the option to buy an additional 5% at fair market value to take their interest to 75%.

Surely it is in Newcrest's best interest to have only 5.5m oz in the DFS (the figure comes from GGP's broker) and to focus on infill drilling that one minable area, rather than drilling out extension holes and trying to increase the overall resource.

This strategy will quite properly allow them to focus funds on getting Havieron into production for Terlfer. It will also massively reduce the amount of money they need to pay to GGP for the 5% (keeping the resource down to 5.5m oz could result in them paying just 1/3rd of what they really should for the 5% interest).

Once Newcrest have done the DFS and bought the extra 5%, it is then in their best interest to test the extent of the gold in the wider area.

So, do not be surprised if Newcrest focus on infil drilling or if the resource comes out this summer at around 5.5m oz. It is after all what GGP's own broker is telling us.

Anyone who invested when Teichmann came on board would be up 80% today and had the opportunity to sell 190% up. They have also turned the company from a loss maker into a company in profit and in addition, they are going to double revenues going forwards.

Interesting how Teichmann have upped to a near 30% stake, the maximum permissible before a takeover. Also interesting, they have the right to a board member but have chosen not to. It all screams takeover.

No, I do not recall ever valuing Red Chris before. In any event my Red Chris workings are below. If there is an error in them let me know.

But using $200 / oz is comparing apples to pears. You cannot compare an explorer to a producer.

I note you have not disagreed with my maths on Red Chris.

My maths shows that Newcrest only paid $28/oz in the ground for Red Chris. My maths is below - if the maths is incorrect, do let me know:

5.9M tonnes contained copper (the copper resource at Red Chris) x $5735 per tonne = $33,836,500,000 (value of copper in the ground) / $1,583 (gold price) = 21,374,921 (equivalent oz of gold to the copper) + 20,000,000 oz gold (the gold resource at Red Chris) = 41,374,921 oz gold equivalent

$806,500,000 (price Newcrest paid for 70% of Red Chris) / 0.7 (to get value of 100% of Red Chris) = $1,152,142,857
/ 41,374,921 oz gold equivalent = $27.84 per oz.

Yet people on here think they will get 9x times Red Chris at $200 per oz. This figure is just not credible at the moment.

The $200 per oz suggestion has only arisen since a paid for note came out. The comparators are just three companies and all three of the comparator companies are producers! You can't compare the value of gold in the ground for a producer with the value of gold in the ground for an explorer! That's crazy and is a fundamental flaw for anyone transposing such valuations over to GGP.

A far better comparison is Mariana Resources. Mariana had grades far in excess of GGP, such as a staggering 60m x 80g/t and at much shallower depths. It was open pittable, with outstandingly low capex and opex requirements. It managed, as an explorer, to get just $165/oz for its residual 30%, on my maths. Yet you guys think you will get $200/oz here for a deeper and much lower grade resource?? In my view the value at GGP will be significantly less than $165/oz. $100/oz is a much better than average price to value gold at in the ground. It is more than reasonable to have as a starting point.

I add that Numis now estimate a larger reserve at the project of 5.5m oz against 4m oz previously. Forget the $200/oz valuation. If you take the still very optimistic $100/oz, this values GGP at 3.18p per share fully diluted, a figure that can be:

- reduced as it includes no discount for risk, the time it takes to realise the above, dilution to shares in interim if funds are raised etc.;
- increased as it does not include the opportunity of having a larger resource, give any credit for other land holdings, or the possibility of a better return given the desperation of Newcrest.

One can debate the figure, but I see everything over 3.18p as being overvalued at present. The market has clearly been adjusting itself and 6p was thought to be over bought. So too was 5p thought to be overbought by the market. 4p is now being tested. The price may stay above 4p, but in my view it is still overvalued and overbought - at this point in time in the life cycle of Greatland Gold. That does not mean to say that the value of Greatland will not rise as the exploration progresses.

Hence my 3.18p target for the moment.

5.5m oz at $100 / oz is 3.18p per share, fully diluted.

Heaven forbid if they weren't feeling confident with the grades already released...

Yes, you do need to go on. That is two posts not half a dozen as you wrongly asserted.

Indeed two posts before then I stated at a different share price "In short, we are in my view undervalued medium term but fairly valued as of today".

Which obviously completely contradicts your statement, but as I say, never let the truth get in the way of a good story will you...

*half-dozen. Point remains.

lebugue, don't let a good story get in the way of the truth now, will you.

My last dozen posts talking about GGP being overvalued?? Complete fiction - as anyone who looks at my posting history can see.

Remind me to remember your mathematical ability when you next talk about what the GGP share price should be...

The problem on these boards is that they are totally one sided. Anyone not willing to support the pumping of the share price is criticised.

I don't know which hole you've been in schlemiel, but what you say is not new.

Absolutely nothing new in that. Indeed they (a) acknowledge they used information from the last exploration update and (b) confirmed that they were not aware of anything that materially affects the information already released.

Time for all to go to sleep.

P.S. If we look at cash flows and NPV we can reach much higher figures as KEFI's RNSs demonstrate. But even if we ignore those and just look at the value someone is prepared to pay for the project today, we get to a 3.5p-4p conservative valuation.