Member Info for TakingMyTime

80% of fund to be invested in shares with market cap < £100 million -- at the time of investment. Can continue to hold if they grow past that after the investment is made.

Very unlikely to be increasing their holding, though. But it's possible they'll continue to hold their current investment if they still believe in GGP.

"90 min test is not workable at an airport with tousounds arriving what do the do arrive 22 hours before a flight get real man pls"

Hopefully there are a few people around with a little more capability than you have of thinking outside the box.

Set up test centres 30-60 minutes away from the airport, connected to the airlines' systems. Pop in, get your test, go grab a cup of coffee, wait for a text saying you passed, go to the airport.

Incoming passengers from high-risk localities can quarantine or go to one of the off-site test centres and get tested. Unless they had a "pass" before boarding at the other end.

It doesn't need to be done at the airport and shouldn't be. You don't want people with Covid going to the airport, you want to test them before they arrive.

I'll excerpt, full paste would violate copyright and thus site rules. But it really doesn't say a lot:

"The firm is likely to record a loss at the net level, or the bottom line, for the third time in four quarters. Shell cut its dividend by two-thirds in the first three months of 2020 but BP held firm at 10.5 cents per share.

If BP sticks to that for the whole year it would be the single biggest dividend payer in the FTSE 100, at around £6.7 billion.

That number leaves BP’s shares on a forward dividend yield of more than 10pc, which some argue may be in “too good to be true” territory."

Also talks about Looney's plan to have a big strategy presentation this autumn on how we are going to appease Greta and her groupies. Might not have stated it quite that way ;)

https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/ggp/ownership

Updated as of 31 July. Marlborough Nano Cap reduced their holding in the quarter leading to April. Not sure there's anything else particularly notable, a little bit of L&G activity.

@wasred, sorry, for my sins I spent too much time over there and it sneaks in occasionally.

Er, "license" not "lease"

Hi, Bamps, you're right, I read it wrong. The lease is for Hav only.

Not sure why we had to play the legal game with Scal ownership, but it's pretty obvious it was for purposes of the mining lease application. Maybe because it's all in the same tenement? Don't know, probably doesn't matter much why, those in the know did what they needed to do.

No, those things are not a SLUR. A slur is what you posted on 15 June on another board on this forum.

A SLUR is calling others "moaning argumentative trouble makers". It's also ironic, since every single one of your comments is moaning and arguing, and most of them run off topic.

A SLUR is saying that others have no experience of life, just because they don't see eye to eye with you.

Reported again.

At Hav, there was no proven asset. NCM was putting in 65 million for possibly nothing. It made sense that they would get a large percentage for that risk.

Also at Hav, we didn't even have the money to prove it up, let alone mine it. So we needed someone, and we paid for that.

At Scal, hopefully, it will be a proven resource. That takes the risk out of it for the other partner (NCM or someone else.) Also, in these scenarios, we'll have more resources and could potentially mine it or find another JV partner. We will not be in a position of weakness.

In RA's scenario, I would expect the % to be closer to 50/50, with the partner doing the mining and bearing the costs. We aren't just going to hand someone 50% of the asset just because they know more about mining. We can hire knowledgeable people if we need to, we'd have the resources. I'd be surprised if we could get to SocialistB's 70/30 breakdown but it certainly won't be the same as Hav. A proved up asset is worth a lot more than a speculative one, and we'd be providing a proved up one.

RA, I'm going to take your assumptions and add another one -- that by the time your scenario plays out, we've had sufficient drilling results at Scallywag to assure us we have an economically viable Au-Cu or Cu resource.

Under that scenario, my preference would be to negotiate a deal with NCM where they take on the full costs of mining Hav, and we retain a large royalty percentage. They are in control, they mine it, they just send us loads of lovely money every year. We don't become miners, but we retain a royalty in Hav. This should give us more than enough to run a major drilling campaign, and also start to generate some dividends (maybe 1-2p / year).

We turn Scal into a pin-cushion and fully prove up the resource, and do a deal with NCM, Rio, or some other major. They come in and mine it (that's what they do, not what we do). But because it's already proved up, the royalty percentage on this one should be much, much bigger. Loads of money to go drill the next target -- and, to pay bigger dividends.

This won't be the buyout scenario that some shareholders want, but it certainly would push the SP very, very high, and those who want to cash in could.

Tons of possible permutations, but that seems to me the best plan for long term value -- retain a share of the things we find but let the mining companies do the actual mining. This is, however, a relatively uninformed opinion, I am no expert on mining.

@MH01, the JV is unlikely to leave all the CAPEX and Opex to the senior partner. It will leave 25% of it to the junior partner unless we sell an additional percentage to NCM.

We can pay 25% of such costs and receive 25% of proceeds. Or, perhaps we could agree that NCM bears all such costs and we only receive X% (15? 20?) of proceeds. But we certainly won't receive 25% without bearing our share of costs.

RA, if we receive 5% of a £2 Bn asset (your starting assumption), we have £100 million cash. If we retain 25% of that asset (another £500 million), and the £100 million doesn't cover the cash needed to go to mining and drill Scally all we want, the extra amount needed will be small, and the size of our retained asset will make it easy to secure debt financing for anything extra we need.

Hi, Bamps. You are mostly right on NCM ownership of Scallywag, but it's confusing and you'd probably be better off just forgetting it, LOL. The 8 June RNS explains it somewhat but not in layman's terms, so I'll take a brief shot at it.

NCM temporarily has 40% legal ownership of the entire Hav tenement, which includes Scallywag. GGP still has 100% beneficial ownership. This is until the mining license comes through, at which point we will get our full legal ownership back.

Basically it means we've created a legal fiction that NCM owns 40% of it, but our beneficial ownership means it comes with a wink and a nod that they really don't own anything except part of Hav. But they have to have the same legal ownership of the whole thing to get a mining license for the whole thing. So, temporarily, we've loaned them 40% of the legal ownership while saying, "As far as beneficial ownership, which is what matters, this baby is still ours."

This allows a single mining license for the whole thing so we don't have to go through it again later with Scallywag. The different assets can be retained or sold but it will all be under the same license.

In short, NCM did us a solid by helping us play this legal game. The result is that when all is done, we'll have a mining license for both Scal and Hav, we'll own 100% of Scal, and they will own whatever percentage of Hav that they will have earned by then.

I doubt it will even come into the negotiations over any potential buyout of Hav, however. It's all a legal game NCM agreed to play with us to help us out.

Treatment is already improving. That's partly why deaths are staying low in most Western countries even where cases are going up.

No, spoon, my head's fine, this just makes me finally start to have hope for yours, LOL.

I actually agree with rushing vaccines in this kind of a situation, might save a lot of lives, but you'd have to give full disclosure, full warnings, and require people to take responsibility for their decision to use it or not. Many would. A lot in the at-risk population figure they only have a few years left anyway and they want a chance to live those years, rather than cower in their homes.

How many people had the cruise or the holiday of a lifetime planned, and have now been told they can't, and would rather take the risk because they've always dreamed of it. Offer them a vaccine that works but warn them, "We don't know the side-effects," and a lot would say, "I'll take that risk." I think it would be good to give them the choice. (I'd think that even if I didn't own IAG.)

I agree with spoon again. I understand why they are doing it but I won't be taking a vaccine that soon, either.

Those at high risk and those living in fear may want to do so and I understand the decision. I'll wait until I have more confidence in the vaccine and that won't happen this year.

Yes, if you stick to facts and avoid slurs, there is indeed a better chance for peaceful discussion.

Still too many variables.

1. Does GH believe the independent valuation is a good one? Taking into consideration the possibility of drastically increasing POG?
2. As big as this resource appears to be, how confident will we be able to be in the value at that point in time?
3. What's happening at Scallywag in this scenario? Have we found a significant resource there? And how much cash is needed to develop it if we have? And what kind of agreement is on offer from other majors to develop it?
4. If we do have a significant resource at Scal, do we want to work with NCM on it, or not? If not, what would it cost to buy out of their right of first refusal, and can we get that release tossed in as part of the Hav deal?

I think if we have a resource worth developing at Scal and need funds to develop it, that would point towards doing a deal at Hav, rather than waiting for mining income to start coming in. If we don't need funds because we are going into another JV (with NCM or someone else) then there might be a case for holding the 25%.

I don't think NCM needs the other 25%. Not to say they wouldn't like to have it, I'm sure they would. But as long as the ore rolls through Telfer, they don't need to own all of it. So I don't think your #2 is based on a sound premise -- I don't think it is "worth more" to NCM. And I don't think they will pay more than they think it is worth to others.

One appealing option is to sell most of it to NCM and use the proceeds to pay a really nice dividend, but retain a large enough percentage to comfortably fund future exploration efforts. "We'll be glad to sell you another 15% but we want to retain 10%."

@Newbie "Has this been confirmed or predicted to happen?"

Confirmed. At the top of the page there's a button that says "IAG Share Chat". Next to that, "IAG Share Trades." Next to that, "IAG Live RNS."

Click on the RNS one and read back all the RNS announcements for a while. If you've invested here without knowing these things, you really need to read up on the announcements, at least, it's a basic part of share research. If you haven't yet invested, please read the RNS history for at least a year on any share you are considering investing. Not every RNS is particularly important, some of them are just regulatory stuff that shouldn't matter much, but some are very important.

This is basic stuff. If I what I just said is new to you, I'd recommend that you not buy any more shares until you've done some basic learning about investing in shares, how to understand what you are buying, etc.

@l-a, that's for sure. What a, well, I don't know what to call him that would be appropriate for a gentleman to say, and I want to maintain my gentleman-facade today.

It's quiet here for a weekend. Perhaps we crammed the full weekend's worth of lunacy into a few posts last night and got it over with!

Bamps, she won't talk to me, very frustrating.

Maybe she's like some of the posters on here, she'll only give information to certain people because she wants to protect her sources. Ask WF, she talks to him.

I'm just a hoarse whisperer.