Member Info for TakingMyTime

@WF, I know some things about tax but am not an expert anywhere, least of all in Australia. I am, however, pretty sure that if a company receives a large number of liquid assets, it would be seen as revenue in most jurisdictions, and be treated as profit unless offset by corresponding expenses.

In any event, whether dictated by tax or not, no one should be surprised if Pacific Trends starts to sell some of these shares as soon as they receive them. Just like Gervaise Heddle, even if they believe in the case for GGP, it would hardly be surprising if they liquidate some of their shares to diversify their holdings.

I would be pretty sure that there will be a hefty tax bill arriving in their office upon receipt of these shares. I would also guess that they don't have the cash to pay that tax bill.

I would be shocked if they did not sell at least a third of those shares, so as to have the funds to pay the tax. They might sell half and have a really nice party, and still be very rich by holding onto the other half.

"Decision to mine" might give a real nice boost to the SP but the boost may be partly delayed by a large sale from Pacific Trends. Holders should not be discouraged if the decision to mine doesn't immediately drive the price up. It will drive the price up but the market may have to absorb a bunch of Pacific Trends shares first.

Another good corporate responsibility move.

This was never going to be a huge financial hit to clean this up, PSN just wasn't as exposed as some others on this. So just get it done and over with, and be out front of the others.

You can't undo all the mistakes of the past but you can get at the front of the queue in fixing the ones that can be fixed.

"It is genuinely shocking that in 45 minutes you have only got 2 tick ups for that post. One of them's mine."

Three now. One's mine.

One could, of course, have explained why one said that. Since one did not even when asked, the suspicion of anti-Semitism remains, unfortunately.

What I've read is that there's big things going on at GGP. Thanks.

"Many would say no because the chance is only 10% each time."

I would say "no" because I wouldn't gamble all I have on anything. I might gamble some of what I own but not everything.

Beyond that, I would say no because the risk-reward equation is pathetic. If I'm going to bet on a 10% chance of hitting, I want to make better than a ten-fold increase. If I have a 90% chance of losing everything, I want the 10% to pay off at least by 15-fold and probably by 20-fold, or the risk hasn't been worth it.

@thelearner, very good thoughts.

One thing, though. I don't think we should look to Cadia as a model for AISC. It's different in many ways. The cost to get workers and equipment to Cadia is miniscule by comparison. The cost to get ore to Telfer is something Cadia doesn't have. NCM is going to charge toll processing fees to the Hav JV, something that has no parallel at Cadia. Also, it's yet to be proven whether Hav will produce Cu on the same level as Cadia -- if not, the byproduct credits will not be as good at Hav as at Cadia.

There are many reasons to be optimistic about the AISC at Hav, but Cadia's is world-leading. I don't think we'll get close to it, nor should we be disappointed by that. There are too many differences for us to expect that.

@Merlin
IMO, the possibility of acquisitions by GGP right now is low. We'd have to issue shares to do that, and so it would likely require shareholder approval both by GGP shareholders and the target company's shareholders. Alternatively, we could borrow to do that but such borrowing would probably be very expensive.

Also IMO, the possibility of acquisitions by GGP once Hav is producing is high. Then, SD will have funds to work with, and also likely be able to borrow at a reasonable cost if additional funds were needed.

You don't say you are going to be a multi-asset company based solely on exploration, because the chances of the exploration not working out are high. If you are promising multi-asset, you have at least a general plan of how to get there, and SD has history in that regard.

@BR "Acknowledging your post TMT"

Nevertheless, you're right to remind us that anything beyond Hav is a long-shot, and anything outside of the Paterson is even more of an outside chance.

@BR "But TT (and I sound like a party pooper)The chances of a second strike and it becoming a mine are rather slim."

Totally true. But Hav actually improves those chances, too. Three important points:

1. We know we're in elephant country. The fact that three elephants have been found (Telfer, Winu, Hav) improves the chance that another will be found and we got in first in choosing preferred targets. That improves the chance of a second strike.

2. The chance of a second strike becoming a mine are improved because of Hav providing infrastructure that can reduce the necessary CAPEX to go to mining. For example, a hit at Scallywag has a much higher chance of becoming a mine because there's going to be infrastructure right next door that can likely be reused, and a road or railroad to Telfer.

3. The chance of a second strike becoming a mine is also increased by Hav because we'll have the money we need to develop it. Hav is going to solve the funding problems that hit most discoveries by juniors.

Your point is well-taken but we're in a unique situation and the odds of us having a second mine are certainly higher than the odds for most juniors.

The biggest problem is that this forum doesn't know how to handle trolls.

Three parts to that problem:
1. There's no moderation in the evening. That's probably a financial problem. A lot of Internet forums have volunteer mods and evenings are covered by volunteers. Not here.
2. The mods are way too slow to ban people. People that are obviously trolling and break rule after rule will have their posts removed but they do the same thing the next night.
3. People feed the trolls because they think it is fun to do, I guess, or because they lack the self-control. So instead of a few posts from an obvious troll that everyone ignores, you have about 50 posts back and forth between the troll and the person arguing with him. And then for anyone to read the board and find the good stuff, they have to go through all of that stuff.

There are a few other things dragging down the board. Notably, there's some guys with personal vendettas that should just meet up and either have a drink together or have a duel and get it over with (for those who lack a sense of humour, that was a joke, not advocating violence). There are also some people whose posting patterns and the difference between their day time and evening posts suggests they are posting after a few drinks. They should just not post in the evenings.

But the biggest problem is the trolls. And it is actually not that hard to fix.

Re: coal, the following may be of interest. The anti-coal push is a largely European/US thing that the rest of the world is, at most, giving lip service to.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2021/03/05/china-economic-blueprint-signals-more-coal-investment-.html

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/asia-snubs-ieas-call-stop-new-fossil-fuel-investments-2021-05-19/

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/worlds-coal-producers-now-planning-more-than-400-new-mines-research-2021-06-03/

In fact, the reality in the US and parts of Europe doesn't match the rhetoric, either. The reality is that people need energy and will demand it. And so coal is not being shut down as fast as some people think:
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063730365

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-15/gas-is-so-scarce-in-europe-that-coal-is-making-a-comeback

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/polish-coal-mine-risks-derailing-eu-climate-strategy/

There are those who don't invest in coal because they think it is unethical to do so. (Personally, I think it is unethical for those who built advanced economies on cheap fossil fuels energy to try to prevent much poorer countries from doing the same, but others may disagree with me on that.)

There are also those who don't invest in coal because they think it is a failing industry and a losing investment strategy, and they may feel vindicated by the IEA / G7. The reality on the ground suggests, however, that this second group might be making a mistake.

@Ruprah "If NC have been buying away behind the scenes for the last 6 months could they take us out at a low value ?"

If NC have been buying behind the scenes they have acquired, at most, 10%. I seriously doubt they've acquired that much. I'm not persuaded they've been buying at all.

I bought some NCM shares at the same time I bought GGP, to mitigate the risk that they would buy us out too low. I now consider that risk minimal. I've posted before the reasons that I don't think NCM intends to buy us out. If they have been buying, it's IMO a defensive measure to make it harder for someone else to take us over, something they wouldn't want to happen.

I also think that if NCM or anyone else actually were trying to build a stake on the sly towards taking us out at a low price, there's relatively little we can do about it, except make sure they don't get our shares at least until they break cover. If one thinks that is what is happening, one would be beyond foolish to be trying to buy the dips and sell the peaks. You might end up being out of the share when they break cover and the price shoots up.

I think if NCM or someone else were to come in and offer 50p per share, there is a significant risk that enough shareholders would accept it and would therefore cut off our upside. However, I also think that for NCM (or anyone else) there would be a significant risk that it would start a bidding war. If NCM were to offer 50p to take us out, Barrick or Franco Nevada or random Ultra High Net Worth individual, or some venture capital firm, might say, "Easily worth more than that, I'll pay 60p," and then someone else 70p, etc.

NCM or whoever might have to offer as much as 75-100p to preclude that. That also would limit our upside but would perhaps not be so painful.

As usual, I've taken a lot of words, this time to say, "I'm not too worried about that."

All those are reasons why it would make sense for GGP to say, "No, thanks."

But, it depends on the price, as always.

I think one other point needs to be added in regard to the multiples question.

Dectupling is to multiply by a factor of 10.

One who reads quickly might read it as "Decoupling". However, a "t" is not an "o" (nor vice versa). Therefore, anyone who thinks speaking of "dectupling" is "decoupling" from reality is mistaken. The two words are not the same and therefore, one could hope for a 10-fold increase in the known size of Havieron without >necessarily< being decoupled from reality.

If reading the above has made you dumber rather than smarter, all I can say is that such things aren't unique on the Internet.

However, this brings us to another important "maths is fun" point. Dectupling, a 10-fold increase, is also known as an order of magnitude. When you multiply something by 10, you increase it by an order of magnitude. When you divide it by 10, you decrease it by an order of magnitude. By now, some of you are saying, "TMT has gone plain daft, what's he banging on about now?" The plain daft part may be right, of course. Others of you, however, might remember this quote from the Proactive article (see, I'm actually on topic!):

"Given the emergent size of Havieron, which is already pushing past 4.2mln ounces of gold, it would probably have got built anyway, but the existing plant means that the internal rate of return is going to be SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than it otherwise would have been." (emphasis added)

One order of magnitude would mean the internal rate of return would be 10 times better than it otherwise would have been. Two orders of magnitude would be 100 times better. "Several" usually means at least 3 or 4, which would be 1000 or 10000 times better IRR. I am sure Telfer significantly improves our IRR, but I am quite sure that it is not be several orders of magnitude.
IMO, Alastair Ford, who is undoubtedly very knowledgeable in this space, is yet obviously guilty of serious ramping here. Or maybe just no one ever told him maths is fun.

I'm not quite entirely sure I'd endorse Ford's use of "emergent" here either, but that's not maths, and I'll let Impecunious2 speak to that if he wishes.

@Tig "almost certain doubling /trebling, quadrupling ( I do not know the next 10 words in the sequence )"
Quintupling
Sextupling
Septupling
Octupling
Nonupling
Dectupling

We don't want to extend to duodecuple or tredecuple because of the chance that some bakers may be invested here and might get confused as to what's a dozen. The last several are not, I believe, usually used in verb form, but then, Havieron need not be limited by "usual." Gervaise Heddle already burned through all the usual superlatives.

Perhaps what you really want is centuple, or even milluple (also known as a chiliad). Think "millennium" for that last one and you won't even have to google it to find out what it means.

Maths is fun.

Worth noting the difference between GGP and some of the companies cross-ramped here. We don't have to worry about the null tuple.

@wasred "The answer I got from the Internet for the abbreviation was
Hearing From God."

I can assure you that I have never heard anything from God about GGP or Havieron. But for now, I certainly am Holding For Gold and I hope my kids do the same when I pass my shares to them.

ATB

Will respond to this now the market is closed....

@Paddy, thanks, ATB to you. You were a big factor in helping me decide to invest here. Though as my life has turned I've ended up not needing the money, that might not have been the case, and anyway, it's something very nice to pass on to my kids. So I feel an immense gratitude for your selfless contributions here.

@manutd99, please don't make me your mentor, Do Your Own Research! :) It's nice to hear if I've helped someone. In all seriousness, though, this is why I've been advised to leave this forum. Just because I'm good with words doesn't mean I'm always right, and I'd hate to be wrong when someone considers me a mentor -- doesn't fit well with being a spiritual mentor. I hope that makes sense. Thank you for the very nice comment.

People don't want to read my farewells to every single person, so just to say thanks to all who have responded. I'll probably be around a little longer. ATB.

@Redtrader
If I understand your point, it's that in the normal order of things, there would be no need to be doing some of the things they are doing before the PFS. They are obviously expediting things much more quickly than would normally be needed to develop a mine.

If that's your point, I agree. People can draw their own conclusions as to why that would be. My conclusions are that there is no question that it will be a mine, and there is no doubt that they want to bring it to production ASAP. I suspect from your other comments that those are your conclusions, too, and that is what you meant when you said, "I may be wrong." You might, but if those are your conclusions the facts certainly seem to back them up pretty well.

ATB.

Thanks, Panama. Hope you are finding comfort and peace, and I appreciate your friendship.