We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Note : 7) Do I think my posting will affect the SP - No How exactly is one persons comments on this BB supposed to depress the SP to achieve my evil, immoral aims? Are you worried that I will convince someone to sell up a couple of million shares? I'm afraid that will not have that effect. The MM's set the SP and, before you worry, no I do not have a direct line to them. I am pretty sure they make their own assessment of the company value and probably don't even know this BB exists! If you are going to worry about something, I would worry more about one of the minority institutional investors selling their stake as that would have a much more profound impact. Chances are, if they are in now, they will sit for the initial results and then re-assess their holding.
Itsallamess - My post history is there for all to see and I stand by the comments and observations that I have made. You seem to think I am hiding from it or wanting to deny it in some way. Not the case I am afraid. The investment case today is the same as the investment case a week ago - same potential / same unknowns / same risks. My tactics are simple - I invest at the point where the risk / reward balance is acceptable to me. I use charting techniques and factor in sentiment to predict the best buy in point and I continually update my assessments as the situation develops. In my experience, this provides better and more consistent returns than the 'blind faith model'. I see no reason to hide or appolgise for this - to me it is an integral part of investing. To make you job a little easier; 1) Yes I was previously invested 2) No I am not invested at present 3) Why did I sell? - Because I thought it would drop. 4) Did it drop? - Yes 5) Will I re-invest? - possibly it it happens drops to my current target price 6) Will I stay the course - Maybe, depending upon progress 7) Do I think my posting will affect the SP - No
Thanks bhargav, I appreciate that. I suspect it may be superstition that drives some to stamp on any comments which are not 100% positive. Maybe they believe such comments jinx a companies fortunes or that the 'power of positive thought' will in some way guide the drill bit to the gold.... Maybe they should suggest it to CB as an exploration technique as he ponders the geological map.....
Hi Paddy, Yes that would be an ideal situation whereby holes are drilled, assayed and reported to the market sequentially and, if positive, steadily built upon and supported the SP. The devil will be in the detail. The initial holes may well come back with decent 'spot grades' of gold in g/t - typically reported as headlines facts in the RNS, however a LOT depends upon a) the thickness of the mineralised zone and the depth of that mineralisation. For example, an RNS may say 'Au mineralisation of up to 25g/t (a great grade) and the market initially surges, however if, later in the RNS it states that the mineralised zone was only 5m thick or that it is was 60m thick but 250m down then its not so good and the gains are quickly lost. The value of the spot grades are relative to the in-situ conditions which determine the cost / viability of extraction. Like oil, you can be sitting on a sea of it but if you cant get it out commercially its worthless. I would advise not to get distracted by the grades alone - view the results in context and compare between holes to build up a picture of what is there. There will be good holes and bad holes as they move in and out of the area of mineralisation - They need to do this to delineate the lateral extent of the ore body.
Hi Paddy, From my experience, ore exploration companies on AIM tend to update the market per hole drilled / assayed as they do them although its totally up to the BOD. I would expect that GH will take that approach if results are fair to good as it gives opportunities to continue to market and promote the company via interviews etc. If initial results were below expectations or bad, he may choose to hold off and release updates in multi-hole batches to even out any variability as he will be aware of the negative reaction following disclosure of a bad first hole.
Hi Paddy, From my experience, ore exploration companies on AIM tend to update the market per hole drilled / assayed as they do them although its totally up to the BOD. I would expect that GH will take that approach if results are fair to good as it gives opportunities to continue to market and promote the company via interviews etc. If initial results were below expectations or bad, he may choose to hold off and release updates in multi-hole batches to even out any variability as he will be aware of the negative reaction following disclosure of a bad first hole.
Good well balanced post there stuartw6040. The potential is good and the multiple licences spread out the risk of a dud. But you are absolutely right, potential is all we got at the moment and at our present cash situation, that potential accounts for nearly 80% of our MCAP (16m out of 20m). As our cash reserves dwindle with exploration and admin costs, that potential will equate to nearer 90 to 95% of our MCAP which will put us in an increasingly unstable situation in terms of market valuation. The potential for assets are there but there is also a potential for volatility. GGP really need to cement their opening position with early decent results. If they can't do that then as each successive licence is ticked off, there is less and less 'future potential and all hopes become pinned to a smaller and smaller spectrum of options. A good case study of this is UK OR which soared from 1p to 10p within a year only to crash to 6p then 3p then it's current 1.5p as each 'potential' option was exhausted. The moral - manage your exposure and your personal risk.
Afternoon All, For anyone not to familiar with gold and rare earth prospecting (and for those wanting a refresher) the following link provides some useful and interesting information on what constitutes commercial grades in any given situation. http://www.mining.com/web/making-the-grade-understanding-exploration-results/ Point to note: 1. - High-grade mineralization is relative to the depth of the intersection and relative to the size of the intersection. 2. - Two questions to ask are: � Is the Au zone less than 300 metres deep? � Is the drill intercept of Au mineralisation over 100 metres thick? 3. - As a rule of thumb, open pit mining can process ore for $10 per tonne and, where the ore grade is more than double that at $20 per tonne, results would be economic. 4. - A gram of gold is worth about $25, so 2 grams or better would be viewed as high-grade for bulk tonnage mining. One hundred metres of good grade is again good criteria for thickness.
Webbs - yes that is a real concern for me here. SolGold carried out multiple placings (justifiable) over the main drill and prove-up program to fund the work and the dilution caused obvious issues for the SP. In that case, it worked out well for LTH as the final result was an excellent resource. It is concerning to me that GGP are starting off with twice the number of shares in issue before breaking ground than SOLG had at the time of project completion. In my opinion, it makes it even more important that the early programmes for GGP are a success as the dilution caused by funding a couple of duds may mean that GGP find it progressively harder to secure future funding for exploration of their final licences. On the plus side, we do have GH at the helm with a wealth of finance experience and likely banking contacts so that may help.
Afternoon All, For those out there with an aversion to any increase in blood pressure � you needn�t worry. I will not be posting on here all-day long. I thought it would be a helpful guide, for some, to see how successful exploration of a major mineral play has borne out in the recent past so that interested investors here can see how much work goes into building the evidence base. I should pre-warn the �jam by 2pm brigade� that collection of their Bugatti Veyron�s� is likely to be somewhat delayed�. Nevertheless, this is a factual post based on actual events over at SolGold PLC (SOLG) during their exploration of the Cascabel licence in Equador � which is widely regarded to have been a resounding success for the company. In mid-2012, SolGold commenced initial exploration of a suspected gold-copper porphyry structure (the Cascabel Project) in Equador. By November 2012, the results of the aerial magnetometer and surface soil grid sampling were in and indicated very good results. A programme of initial RC drilling was proposed. Further geological mapping and extended shallow sampling work was carried out in Q1 and Q2 of 2013 with typical results of around 0.81g/t Au. This is generally analogous with the current position of GGP across its multiple licence areas. Drilling commenced on the 1st Sept 2013 and the first 300m deep hole was completed by 11th Sept which showed visible gold and copper mineralisation in a 111.5m section. Assay results from the first hole were available by the 16th October 2013 and indicated �high grade� mineralisation up to 1.67g/t Au. Further drilling of 15 further boreholes to depths of up to 850m was carried out over the next 18 to 24 months with each hole taking roughly 4-6 weeks between commencement of drill and receipt of the assay results. At the end of the process the ore body was considered commercial � albeit requiring further work. Prior to the start of drilling, the SP say at around 4-5p. Upon the results of the initial borehole assay results, the SP rose to typically 9-10p. The SP was in gradual decline back to around 1.5p during the drilling of the other 15no. boreholes due to multiple placings. The major rise in SP (from 3p to 45p came in Q3 of 2017 upon completion of the overall drilling programme and upon declaration of a commercial resource. Obviously the drilling at SOLG has been drawn out due to the significant depth of the boreholes, however the two situations compare in that, whilst GGP may not need to drill that deep, the target area they are assessing is a lot wider than the very localised porphyry deposit that SOLG have. Consequently, GGP are likely to need more boreholes than those currently planned to reach the level of confidence that SOLG achieved with their 16 boreholes. On the plus side, shorter and more numerous boreholes should lead to more frequent news updates as the drill / assay work is
Totally agree with you on that itsallamess. Some of the best advice around. No shame in expecting the worst and banking profits as the arise. There will always be other opportunities and tomorrow is a new day. I'm sorry djryan but LTH do not always win. They haven't in GKP or Kdnc, they certainly haven't in IRV or CLLN or QPP. But they did in SOLG and SXX. Anything can happen and investors need to balance their exposure.
I think you'd better filter me mate then if you feel my contributions are boring. Then we won't bother each other. As such I don't expect to hear your gripping posts again. If you do keep interjectng in what is becoming an interesting discussion I will assume you haven't filtered me because you retain some underlying interest in my research and thoughts. Totally up to you.
That's working on a proven deposit of 10m oz by the way..... The question is, if we get good initial results, how much will we likely need to spend on supplementary exploration to prove it up enough for a sale? The initial drilling will not be enough. As a very rough guide in the Lithium market, REM / Bacanora minerals have, I believe, undertaken 6 or 7 supplementary phases of infill drilling and assay work over the last 5 years and are now getting close allegedly to proving an economically workable resource. Different resource sector but the same principle applies. Those costs and timescales need to be accounted for in any projection. By the rate of progress at GGP since GH took the helm on 2017 hopefully we will bring it in faster than this.
If its all the same to you, I'd be grateful if you could keep snide comments on my personal life - of which you know nothing - to yourself. This BB is for the discussion of matters relating solely to GGP. Your comment has no place here and you do your own credibility no favours with inane statements like that.
Hi Coach, yes I realise that is a common problem. People live busy lives and do not have unlimited time to research. I am fortunate in that I have a bit more than others and enjoy the process. Thats the great thing about properly balanced BB. They can signpost people to the detail and save people a lot of time. As has been said previously, you do need to treat all posters with a degree of sckeptasism. Some unfortunately have likely written me off due to my early focus on the negatives. I hope in time, people will see that my posts are balanced on both sides of the argument and that some will find the information contained within my posts useful.
Anything is possible.... But on balance is it likely? The rise to 2.5p last time was sudden but it was based in the approach and link up with a major. The market smellt the real possibility of an early and easy license sale or joint venture. Easy money for ggp to earn in other words. The publication of decent drill results would be great and would certainly lift the SP but at this stage of exploration its unlikely to be of equivalent value to the newmont situation. Ggp has the real prospect of a decent return in time but added value here is going to need to be worked for and earned through blood sweat and progressive drilling. They have a slightly uphill battle now to prove to the market that newmont made a mistake. I would caution the expectation of 1.5 to 2p next week personally. Just my view.