OHD - where we are at or not.........., page-3

Edited version reposted

Now we have the Lithium at Turesi sorted (well almost) as we wait for the drill to arrive and drilling to commence……
There is so much due / over due on the OHD project, one wonders what Trench, our resident “expert” is doing.

There are some things that have me scratching my head:
When the licence for the OHD was granted and announced, the exclusive OHD license allows GPP to produce the OHD Bio-Stimulant in “Australia and New Zealand”, sell and market it internationally (license extension) whilst having the exclusive rights to the Aust/NZ markets. In any subsequent announcements that referred to the OHD licence it continued to indicate the “exclusive license for Australia and New Zealand” (last announcement was 26^th Oct 17) but anything post that announcement it only mentions utilising its exclusive (to Australia) license over the patented OHD process.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180216/pdf/43rmkx0fn1ysvw.pdf (review of operations page 1)
⇒ A reply from GPP and there has been no change to the terms of the OHD licence although they never explained why “New Zealand” was missing.

The grant of the formal license is a key requirement to finalise the PFS --- this was 12^th May 17 announcement but the PFS was being sprouted as being completed end of 2016 / end of June 17 quarter/nearing completion (22^nd June 17) then it changed to being reliant on the Market Scope (30^th June 17)
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170512/pdf/43j6pvvqh9tdhg.pdf

Trench’s job made easy: As per the announcement of his appointment, 11^th August 17https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170811/pdf/43lb8hslkvjrvz.pdf aspects of his job were supervising the sourcing of feedstocks
a) coal: an announcement released 18^th August 16 GPP had already determined the licence areas for the most suitable, accessible and geologically well defined area of the inferred lignite deposit that contains sufficient volume to supply foreseeable needs for the company’s CTL feedstock requirements – almost 12 months before his appointment.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160818/pdf/439dh8h69z2nr6.pdf
b) water/electricity/site: Discussions with the preferred infrastructure provider in the Latrobe Valley regarding the supply of coal, electricity, and water at one site where the OHD plant is proposed to be constructed were progressing well with a final decision to be made shortly. Announcement released 24^th May 17 – 2 ½ months before his appointment.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170525/pdf/43jh654k62s877.pdf

The things that make your eyes roll:

Flavelle retires announced 4^th July 16, with the company citing “the board regrets that the current investment climate has not enabled funding of the complete development of the CTL project, which has led the company to have to search for additional investment opportunities to provide value for share holders.” BUT on the 29^th July some 3 and a bit weeks later, they raised funds through a placement!! Part of the purpose of the issue was to continue the development of the OHC CTL technology. Guess the investment climate took a turn for the better in that short period. All wasn’t lost for Flavelle, although retired he was issued 3M options as being Key Personnel, meaning he was kept as a consultant? For a project that never had enough money to progress but what was more interesting, it wasn’t reported anywhere in the financials plus he was also given 10M shares via a private arrangement from King.


@Zammita was kind enough to provide feedback from the Industry Development Manager APTRC re: the Tomato Field Trials, this doesn’t instil much confidence with the wording “Sorry for the delay, I believe these trials are all underway”
Due to the obvious lack of funds after the $2M grant was rejected, the trial has been scaled back, the wording in the announcement 31^st Jan 18 is IMO indicating they have some real issues with having to validate process functions, prior to re-applying for the CRC-P grant (applications are now closed) with an approximate 3 month wait for any outcomes.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180131/pdf/43r7n53ngpr3hr.pdf

Then we had the debacle of the notification of the Grant being rejected being released 2 days after they were made aware of it, after being issued an Aware Letter they cited that they needed approval from both external consultants and the international accounting firm. Part of their excuse was, “given that GPP are not an expert in this area” they needed advise and approval from the external experts (consultants & accountants) which begs the question again, what is “Our Expert” Trench doing? Considering all the whohar on his appointment and his alleged contacts, what are we paying him for? Plus, read Suttlings CV, he previously was well established in an International Accounting firm working out of New York, we couldn’t of utilised those skills?

Share price on the 6^th Dec - closed 1.9c volume traded @ 3.6M on the 7^th Dec – closed 1.7c with volume traded @ 20.8M (T20’s selling out) as part of GPP’ response to the letter, they stated “they did not consider the rejection would have an effect on the price or value of its securities and they didn’t consider that a reasonable person would expect it to.”
Also in its response to the ASX GPP has boldly suggested “that the rejection of the grant is likely to have virtually no effect either from the perspective of its ongoing plans or financial position.”
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20171219/pdf/43q9q1lhpg8cqg.pdf
This part has me baffled considering the application for the grant was to fund building a PDU and for the field trials.
Ongoing plans were:

1. Agreements to conduct extensive field trials for wheat and tomatoes
2. To create sufficient bio-stimulant by building our own PDU

It is apparent that it did indeed have an effect, simply because by GPP’s own admission they have scaled back the tomato trial (if it is in progress) and a small scale Monash wheat trial (this doesn’t sound like the extensive field trial the were indicating) https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180131/pdf/43r7n53ngpr3hr.pdf

It has been flagged previously https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170608/pdf/43jt5dq1h5kwch.pdf
that GPP “understands there is a view from some market observers to initially move to field trials as opposed to plot and glasshouse trials pundits need to understand that it is cost prohibitive!!”
So lets remember their explanation to the ASX that the rejection of the grant has no effect! - 5 months prior and they were all ready counting pennies, but don’t mind mentioning fertilisers are the largest input costs into this $600M per year market segment. – so lets add a little fluff……
Further, “The company take a conservative view on the trials and would prefer to focus on good science practices to deliver early results and then proactively follow these up in conjunction with industry partners on field trials. Whilst this may add an additional year or so to our testing program it allows the company to appropriately protect its shares holders and working capital reserves.”
So after spending in excess of $4M + on the project thus far (and with the amount of expert consultants/accountants on board) and I think that that amount is being very conservative, they are worried about their flagship project costing too much?
That also doesn’t take into account the amount of dilution handing out all these consultant options has either.
Preserving working capital has one agenda (IMO) and that to keep the lifestyle dream alive!

The fluff that kept us hanging that was forgotten:

“Given the inbound interest in potential off-take and partnering the company has sort to promptly undertake OHD trials on Canola and Palm Oil plants.”
“The company is currently in discussions with international firms and national grower groups regarding off-take and partnering opportunities.”
“The company in conjuncture with Monash is planning further trials to cover oil cereals with a focus on Canola and at the request of international parties Palm Oil.”

Announcement 26 th Oct 17, https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20171026/pdf/43nldbdnpt9pjk.pdf
a) March 2017 GPP engaged Metrix Consulting to carry out an assessment of the possible market in Australia (Marketing Study) for plant growth bio-stimulants (including all possible plants grown for commercial purposes) The Marketing Study will enable GPP to complete its Commercial Plan, the assessment was nearing completion and the final report is anticipated before the end of the current quarter…
b) Wait…. There is more before we can complete the Commercial Plan…….. Studies on the logistics of product transport, siting of the main plant, manning and all economic aspects of the intended business need to be completed before the CP can be finalised.
c) Design of the major commercial processing unit is continuing, hopefully these designs can be easily altered as we so far haven’t progressed passed getting an efficient working PDU built and delivered which in turn will be delaying the design of the “Pilot Plant” as this needs to be a scaled up version of the PDU.
d) Updates on all the steps described in this particular announcement will be issued as they occur.
So we missed the Marketing Study somewhere??? Or we just missed the anticipated time line?

Further Progress Reports: Announcement released 21^st Oct 16
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20161021/pdf/43c58rrdg5crp0.pdf
“2014 GPP & Thermaquatica agreed on the scale of a pilot plant to be built by GPP on the basis it would”:

• Demonstrate the process could step up 100 times from the PDU
• Make a sizable quantity of prime material

“The concept design, capex and opex estimates treating 20 tonne of VBC per day was commissioned to Impact Technology who completed a techno-economic study. GPP engaged HRL Technology Melbourne to verify the plant design then cost it in Australia. HRL were engaged in that process and will present all costings and a financial model before the end of the year.”
Further reports on the progress of the Monash trials and the design and costings of the pilot plant will be issued as these occur.

Waiting for:
Report from the 3 glasshouse and an incubation study re: Evaluation of fulvic-like products from lignite for horticulture & broad acre applications? Finished Nov 17
https://research.monash.edu/en/proj...-like-products-from-lignite-for-horticulture-
or the Evaluation of stressed weeds with herbicide/adjuvant/bio-stimulant blends? Finished 1^stMarch 18
https://research.monash.edu/en/proj...ed-weeds-with-herbicideadjuvantbiostimulant-b
or the Treatment of stressed weed with herbicide/adjuvant and OHD liquor blends? Finished Feb 18
https://research.monash.edu/en/proj...d-weeds-with-herbicide-adjuvant-and-oxidative
Results from the Canola and Palm Oil trials

My gut feeling is GPP are very confident that they will successful with their application for the RJIP grant hence why they are accepting over subscriptions from the SPP (only IMO) to help fund the $750K they need to match.

All the above IMO only
Cheers