Troll Rebuttal Archive

[Hydrogen]

I realise some Trolls may be getting slightly 'frustrated' by today's events, and the arrival of all the former top rated posters from LSE to GGP Chat ....

Brilliant Liam. well done. Clap clap clap

With that in mind, I would like to propose to Liam and admin, to create a specific 'Troll rebuttal archive service thread'.

Readers and Posters can then easily assess and read LSE troll's 'arguments' in 1 place and decide for themselves what they think about something... do they have a point? or is it just misinformation or disinformation... Designed to disrupt...?

So what we can do is present said post by Biggles or Mumbo here, and then directly address the points...

So for example attached... Attached we have Mumbo making a bunch of allegations:

Regarding controlling the narrative ... I suppose we have sought to move the conversation and the narrative away from LSE because it was becoming increasingly clear that it's not a level playing field. It would appear that LSE is and is not operated in a fair and transparent way so a few inclined investors decided to act.

I've also read detailed allegations online and independent (of GGP) telegram groups suggesting that brown paper envelopes change hands with brokers in order for services to help get and keep a stock price down.

With this in mind ... .Mumbo is welcome to post here. So>:

Regarding the GGP NCM $50m loan... This is an 8 year term loan unless the 5% is purchased by NCM where it is agree it will be re-paid first, out of the 5% payment / monies from NCM.

I personally am still expecting somewhere between $100m to $200m for the 5%. Berenberg's note was $220m, i recall. I anticipate the arguments for around $150m could be justified in a number of ways. But that's just my opinion based on GGP's so far unnacpeted 6.5moz MRE by SRK consulting. https://www.srk.com/en/

I.e. 6.5moz x $385/ (in line with recent Canadian gold transactions) oz x 0.05% = $125m , plus for example a $25m or 20% uplift ( to cover exploration upside) thus $152m total..

A recent BERENBERG flash note priced the gold at $495/oz. It didn't specify what resource category that valuation referred to: ie inferred or indicated.. the simply specified an EV/OZ OF $495 /OZ USD, IN LINE WITH AUSTRALIAN GOLD MID TIER MINERS

Another legitimate minimum valuation option is Berenberg note so 6.5m x $495 x .05 = $160m (not i say minimum as this covers little for Exploration Upside which give the latest Drill form the Eastern Breccia has to have a value.

Or you could go off the measured reserves from GGP MRE 2 - " Probable Ore Reserves now stand at 2.4M oz Au and 109kt Cu or 2.9M oz AuEq1,"

If you value 'ore reserves' at around $750-$800/oz ( in line with the recent Pretium transaction; I quote Seeking Alpha: "At this price tag, Pretium is being valued at ~$718.00/oz on reserves, ~$386/oz on M&I resources, and more than 1.70x Brucejack's net present value". and that fact that Eddison suggest that Australian gold is valued at a premium to Canadian.

So 2.9moz x $750 (small Oz premium) x 0.05% = $109m ( this again excludes any premium specific to exploration upside which has to have a value).

I would argue there's 5 - 6moz in the Eastern Breccia just so far... ( whereas SRK's GGP MRE 2 apportions just 500k oz to the EB, due to the drilling cut off).


We may see a compromise, but it's clear IMO whichever way you cut it... the shorts are screwed... As is any $30m or $50m valuation - which is well wide of the mark and will be hotly (and IMO successfully) contested by GGP to any independent valuation expert.. ( based on the details specified in GGP's SRK consulting MRE 2)

THe shorters - with their 64m to buy - were (are still are) hoping for this type of a valuation. Shaun Day however has made it absolutely clear he's confident in the 5% outcome. The fact that negotiations are still 'ongoing' when the were billed by NCM, to be completed Mid-Feb says it all. Not to mention the publication of MRE2 by SRK...

AND you may wonder in my valuations - ah? ... but what about the CAPEX requirement of the 5%...? Well that's simple: $370m x 0.05% = $18m So not much can be deducted from the valuations based on 'HUGE CAPEX Requirements' (acontratry to what the shorters would have you all believe). I understand we raised about $16m in November - another masterstroke by Shaun.

"Fundraise has increased from the minimum amount of approximately US$10 million to approximately US$16 million (£11.9 million)"

So, Mumbo and friends, I look forward to the 'moment of truth' with great science and furious confidence.

And reading of 4D Pharma's downfall... : the circumstances of this administration scenario, like Sirius Minerals are company specific and entirely different.

4D has no viable drug product ready to market. Is it research and development company developing treatments in a new and emerging science of biopharmaceutics. There is no certainty their drugs will either 1) work or 2) pass relevant regulatory and funding hurdles.

Meanwhile we have a mine that is under construction at every level...

However, if NCM were to make a demand for GGP to repay the $50m loan, we could either sell a dilutive royalty to 1) NCM or 2) to a gold streamer such as Wheaten Precious Metals or Franco Nevada. The latter recently paid $100m for 1% of Solgold's (arguably loosely drilled), AND pre PFS, 22moz Cascabel Alpala deep underground deposit, though to require $3bn capex in Ecuador ... IF FN or Wheaton took one look at the uncensored drilling data for Havieron (with the alleged nickel and god knows what else - ie PGM etc... ) - just how much would they be willing to pay...?

More than $50m I'll wager - IMO...

And it wouldn't surprise me 1 bit that shaun hasn't sketched out a back up plan to cover off such an eventuality.

Sandeep will also know that by now. That Shaun Day doesn't mess about.

[choddy]

I don't agree with dragging the lse Cow Poop into this space. Let the trolls speak to themselves over there.

[Curdy]

I think this a great idea Hydro, I haven’t seen too many of them recently on there due to my filtering them out but it is always useful to consider the more well-founded counter-arguments along the journey.

[RationalAssessor]

Interesting idea Hydro.

I'm a little torn though. Part of me is with Choddy which says leave the LSE dross over on LSE where it belongs - that place now appears to be an echo chamber of gloom and despondency.

Part of me however is with you and the need to address some of the FUD and also some of the valid arguments which are posted over at LSE. Any new potential investors may take a look at LSE as their first port of call and miss what they might consider as an opportunity due to the FUD.

If we were to challenge some of the loose truths and doubts, then it may be smart to bring the discussion over here and post the response - but in order to close the loop, a link to the thread here should surely then be posted back as a reponse to the original post in LSE.

Could get a bit messy but it may be worth a try. But is it worth the effort?
Our goal here should be about making wise investment decisions and not necessarily revenge.

[GoGreen1]

I can see some logic in it, in that members here might still read LSE and pick up and get concerned about trolling posts, so having the chance to debunk them here would potentially address that.

[DipSard]

How about going more for a Risk Assessment thread/area than a troll archive where issues raised by trolls or by members here around a lack of understanding of things such as the NCM loan can be addressed and explained.........

[Bottle Rocket - Liam]

Originally that’s what telegram was for, and adeptly did until it out grew itself and morphed to what it is today.

I have no problem with debating fact over fiction.

Where it gets messy, is where we start to apply our own logic (not “fact”) to their logic. As it can lead to miss direction, and drawing conclusions that are not any closer to the truth either, but just framed around our narrative.

Hydros laid everything out here for all to see, which I applaud. Now we have to objectively look at what has been suggested above, and see if we can carefully draw a conclusion that debunks the BS on the other side.

At the same time, it’s okay to conclude it’s Cow Poop, because there is no way they could have got to a conclusion because of the lack of fact.

[Hydrogen]

Hi Dip. Fair comment!

The reason I flag it was because often I think trolls, like The Green fool and Biggles (whilst now better understood) do seek to Stoke doubts and they can be very clever….

Some of the most grateful acknowledgments of my LSE posts we in direct response to debunk such posts.

That’s all. I think there’s a place for it because having doubts is part of human nature.

Sticking with the process isn’t always easy.

[Costa]

Perhaps rebuttal is the wrong word then?

Could it be framed differently? An opposing view supplied with facts that back up that view. He is presenting a case to why he disagrees. The conclusion is Hydros. It would be for others to comment, agree or not to the OP. That is the discussion that follows. The case could be refined with contributions for others. Or indeed, questions asked.

What do not want is for it to descend into an argument or similar.

And here it will not. If someone doesn't agree and cannot articulate why, present their case, then it's likely that that post / response will not gain support/traction.

I don't think that posts from over there can be dropped into a post here. Just add the poster, thread title, time and date of the post and a brief synopsis of that post. Also, we don't want this place to become an enemy of the posters of that place. We just want to do it better.

[DipSard]

Absolutely, think its a great idea Hydro, was just thinking a more general Risk Assessment area where we can address all concerns is better and that includes FUD circulating the GGP multiverse......although playing devils advocate - perhaps just starting a thread/post under Havieron forum when it's open for any related concern is more appropriate?

100% agree, doubt is normal and Havieron IS a project and risk assessments are a normal part and parcel of that. We have a shed load of skills in this group where I do feel we could address these area's in a mature manner such as our own experience/knowledge and facts from RNS's, presentations etc. from what is becoming quite the Reference Library

After all, the main criticism we're getting of this space is that we'll ramp GGP to high heaven and this approach/attitude will not only negate criticism but help our investment. As I say, many here less versed (or obsessed!) in GGP's projects inc. Havieron will be exposed to FUD in the GGP multiverse but we can negate that.

So. - 100% onboard with your idea and the collective 'we' just maintain discipline with using facts and logic vs assumptions of our own to address any issues raised.....whether we do this in a special area or just as a thread in relevant forum etc. perhaps?

[P.I.Joe]

I disagree, leave the trash in the can. No point regurgitating all that garbage on a new platform, particularly this platform that was set up to avoid all that carp. The whole idea for GGPchat was to leave all that behind.

[CanisLycaon]

I disagree, leave the trash in the can. No point regurgitating all that garbage on a new platform, particularly this platform that was set up to avoid all that carp. The whole idea for GGPchat was to leave all that behind.

Totally agree! I appreciate it may be a completely separate thread, but it will surely just end up attracting the same posters to come over and cause the same problems again, IMHO.

[mushroomkid]

I must admit that I have yet to read one negative point about GGP that has any value whatsoever and therefore none should need addressing in this forum.

Positive discussions about the prospects of the company are the ones I favour. More akin to, " Right we know we are going to win the league, let's see how many goals we can score".

[WhiteTiger]

Hi All

I just took a look at the "Dark Side site" which looks as desperate as it deserves, and to follow on with Hydrogen's suggestion which in principle I believe to be a good one. I am thinking of potential new investors coming in to GGP, will they find LSE first and potentially be switched off by it, will they fine this new forum?

Would it be prudent to have a very knowledgable poster (that counts me out) who can just keep some sort of positive input on the "other side" also to draw attention to GGPCHAT where these newcomers may be enlightened...

[Bottle Rocket - Liam]

Educating people to stay away from that site full stop is going to be the hardest part of all.

The sooner people realise they will make better investment decisions for themselves, by not being dragged into places like that the better.

I am sure plenty will disagree, as it has been home for such a long time, but there is a reason AIM has the reputation it does. and it starts with places like that (in my mind)

[Costa]

Educating people to stay away from that site full stop is going to be the hardest part of all.

The sooner people realise they will make better investment decisions for themselves, by not being dragged into places like that the better.

I am sure plenty will disagree, as it has been home for such a long time, but there is a reason AIM has the reputation it does. and it starts with places like that (in my mind)

100% Liam. And the the guys who do what they, do it knowingly and with glee. Yesterday has shown us all the potential of a place like this, what we have here. And all the while, 12 posts so far today and 4 of them are from members over here. 3 are cross ramps. It's over for them!

[lefroggzy]

Well, then, if our goal is to make a more constructive, polite and civilised way too talk about GGP than it is over there….. why stoping at GGP? Why not make it wider then? (Just throwing a stone in the pond here, as we say in my country )

[DipSard]

Hi All

I just took a look at the "Dark Side site" which looks as desperate as it deserves, and to follow on with Hydrogen's suggestion which in principle I believe to be a good one. I am thinking of potential new investors coming in to GGP, will they find LSE first and potentially be switched off by it, will they fine this new forum?

Would it be prudent to have a very knowledgable poster (that counts me out) who can just keep some sort of positive input on the "other side" also to draw attention to GGPCHAT where these newcomers may be enlightened...

I dropped a few links on the LSE GGP board to this site from Bamps and Paddy's posts this morning and yesterday for the thread about having emailed GGP Investor Relations about clarity on the current stage in the Option Exercise.

Thinking is that both existing and new investors not already registered or aware of the new forum will end up reading posts here and be more likely to register if they want to get involved in conversations, and at least end up visiting regularly in place of LSE.

And certainly, how I intend to share my interview notes in future is by providing a link in LSE and Twitter to a post here, just bring them in and let the quality of the forums/posts here do the rest, no need to slag off LSE or other platforms

[poniexpress]

A lot of work involved that may be wasted when we get current issues settled. The trolls cannot deny the facts so just leave them to stew and await the news.

[WhiteTiger]

Bottle Rocket Liam, DipSard

Agree, Education is always the best way and adding the links will bring those that wish to follow the breadcrumbs here.