Member Info for StarBright

The "tired old myth" is that the disclosure regs permit disclosure to be delayed until a worked order is filled. In other words, a buyer can place an order for (say) 25% of the issued shares and not have to disclose their position until all 25% have been acquired. This is nonsense, a tired old myth sadly perpetuated by the many bluffers on LSE...

@Canary3, @Hydro - the info on Bloomberg's function is not always complete. It's generally pretty good, but shouldn't be seen as definitive - as Bloomberg themselves will tell you. The only source of definitive info is the company registrar.

@notrader - no, I knew that NCM have June year-ends.

@Zoros - thanks for your excellent post. I agree (as I said earlier in this thread) that there's scope for more than the 2Mtpa throughput that NCM have based the PFS on. This could have a major impact on the key project economics - NPV, IRR, FCF, PBP etc.

I am less optimistic about the compression of the declared timeframe such that gold production is underway in 2023. Despite the presentation deck comment, GGP's own RNS says first ore in 1H FY2024 and first production of Gold/Copper in 2H FY2024. I think it is too punchy at this point to bring production forward a whole year from what the JV partners are saying.

So, to your three beliefs:
(a) No - I don't think that GGP will see revenue during 2023 from gold mined at Hav
(b) Yes - it's entirely possible that throughput will be at 3Mtpa r/r by the end of 2024
(c) Yes - I think they will want 100% too

@notrader, he (MaxwellDtarney) said: "Vultures are hovering. Is Greatland the target? Absolutely no. Newcrest is the target."

Maybe I misunderstood. He's not exactly the most precise user of the English language..!

If someone is building a stake in NCM then Australia's "Substantial Holdings" regulations will apply (not FCA regs) because NCM is an Australian company with its primary listing on the ASX. I think that disclosure is required from 5% of voting rights onwards.

I don't think anyone need be worried by the idea that a buyer can acquire a significant holding without declaring it until their order has been "completed". I expect that Australian regulations won't permit this any more than UK regs do. The notion that holdings disclosure can be easily circumvented in this way is a tired old LSE myth, up there with "any bid must be at the highest price in the last 12 months", "1-share-trades" and "set limit-sell orders on your shares to stop them being lent to shorters". All nonsense...

Here’s what the PFS actually says:

Indicative Havieron Mine Production Profile (Year, mt)
2024 0.5
2025 1.6
2026 2.0
2027 2.0
2028 2.0
2029 2.0
2030 2.1
2031 1.1
2032 0.3

The relevant footnote in the GGP deck says only: “The project economics do not include any estimate the tolling arrangement whereby capital expenditure such as upgrades to the processing plant at Telfer will be paid for by Newcrest 100% and Greatland will pay a capital contribution and tolling margin to Newcrest as part of the proposed tolling arrangement. “

Looking at the info/commentary provided by JV partners has highlighted another important difference in how NCM and GGP are presenting the Havieron project to their stakeholders. The PFS has been constructed on the basis of an initial 2Mtpa, but GGP seem keen to insist that 3Mtpa oz is the start point. Whilst GGP were “allowed” to flex the starting conditions for the PFS economic modelling in terms of gold & copper prices it looks like NCM held the line on production estimates.

If the difference between 2Mtpa and 3Mtpa were reflected in the modelling I’d expect to see materially better outputs for NPV, IRR, PBP, FCF etc.

@JoeBloggsUk, the gold price is low?

https://goldprice.org/gold-price-charts/30-year-gold-price-history-in-us-dollars-per-ounce

Not my opinion Lenz. It’s what NCM say.

Bottom of page 3: https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2021-10/211012_Havieron%20PFS%20Stage%201%20–%20Market%20release%20.pdf

NCM presentation says:

First Ore 1H 2024
First Production of Gold / Copper 2H 2024

@ST - with Quirk(s) speaking for >30% of the equity and being on the board, I suspect the chances of Bert Monro conducting a beauty parade for funding are vanishingly small. Remember also that the term-sheet was re-neg’d in favour of Quirk (sorry Lionhead…) just a few weeks ago.

I think that the real-world position here is that the Quirk spoon will be the first in the soup. Perhaps - to be fair - not unreasonably given their long-term support etc. My view is that this is one of the reasons why the company valuation is lower than the underlying project might merit. To unlock value for all equity holders, some untangling may be required.

Observation. Being somewhat data-driven, I ran through the last 100 posts and allocated them to four categories:

1. Posts where GGP is the subject, and content is neutral (eg. date JV announced) or positive (35)
2. Posts where GGP is the subject, and content is negative (2)
3. Posts about other posters (57)
4. Posts that are essentially off-topic eg. gold price (6)

Category 2 isn't the problem here, 3 is.

Well done 1divvy. Sounds like you have made good decisions!

You paid under the (then) quoted mid-price, so secured a good deal via your chosen venue. Well done - you should be pleased!

@Macrothinker - what are the yields on gold and crypto…? Asking for a friend, obvs…

@HIInvestor said: “I don’t know what will happen but I’ve watched enough interviews of “experts” predicting financial collapse since 2000s which hasn’t happened but constantly preach “this time”
When watching interviews from people who sell precious metal, just remember it is possible there’s a bias in what you are being presented.”

This. 100x over.

This is possible.

It would be a major +ve for the share price as it would signal that (all or part of) the accumulated cash is not likely to be needed to settle the DHSC dispute.

If I were a new CEO after a quick win, I'd be very very tempted...

@Doublehun: No-one is riled. If you press the green “Switch to Thread View” button, you’ll find that all the posts here are organised in threads, each comprising a discussion on the topic started by the original poster. If you then use “Reply” when you have something to add, everyone will know what your post relates to. If you are addressing an individual poster the convention is to include their username in your post - as I have done here.

Polite request. Rather than starting a new thread titled with a posters name every time you post, could you please use the “Reply” button in the thread containing the post to which you are responding?