Member Info for Bamps21

Interesting couple of notes on that presentation in that the mineral reserves and resources have different calculations to get the figures for gold equivalent factor.

The Reserves and Resources are described in Greatland’s RNS “Havieron South-East Crescent – Pre-Feasibility Study released” dated 12 October 2021. Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Resources comprise 15Mt @ 3.9 g/t Au and 0.64% Cu in Indicated and 37Mt @1.4 g/t Au and 0.18% Cu in Inferred categories
3 The gold equivalent (AuEq) is based on assumed prices of US$1,300/oz Au and US$3.00/lb Cu for Ore Reserve and assumed prices of US$1,400/oz Au and US$3.40/lb Cu for Mineral Resource, gold recoveries of 88%, and copper
recoveries of 84%, which equates to a formula of approximately AuEq = Au (g/t) + 1.6 * Cu (%). In Greatland's opinion both gold and copper have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold. “
From those figures the gold eq values are more than likely to rise with increases to gold and copper prices.

Regarding upfront capex
HAVIERON LOW CAPEX, LOW RISK Greatland share of upfront Capex is expected to be a further US$73m
§ Greatland share of upfront Capex is low US$73m plus the US$50m already funded through an existing loan facility
§ Excluding contingency, Greatland share of upfront capex is just US$53m

Regarding AISC credits nothing yet has been said about silver credits we know it’s there, but may have to wait for the first Dore to be produced and processed.
This will have an effect of reducing the AISC value

That note is referring to the NPV not the AISC, under the Gold councils rules the AISC must cover the costs

October 21 presentation
PFSeconomicsareon100%projectbasisunlessotherwisespecified.AllassumptionsareconsistentwithNewcrestPFSfiguresexceptformacropriceassumptionsofUS$1,750Gold, US$4.08IbCopper,andUSD:AUD72c,appliedbyGreatland. 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.

I’m not sure now whether the AISC$643 covers the tolling charge according to that note it doesn’t.

https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/GGP-Growth-Update-Final.pdf

Hi Spades
No the main game finished a couple of hours ago, the Reds beat Cardiff :))

Hi Spades
From the jv agreement
The current intention of both parties is that, subject to a positive Feasibility Study outcome, the ore from the proposed Havieron Joint Venture will be toll processed at Newcrest's Telfer Gold Mine ("Telfer"), which sits approximately 45km to the west of Havieron, delivering material economic and operational benefits for both parties. These include:
o lower upfront capital costs (no requirement to build a new processing plant);

o ability to leverage all existing infrastructure at Telfer (roads, airport, power, water);

o reduced time to production and first cash flows; and

o potential for a significantly higher net present value for the project than if a new processing plant and supporting infrastructure was required.



During the Farm-in period, Newcrest will have a first right of refusal over the Black Hills (E45/4512) and Paterson Range East (E45/4928) licences. Additionally, during the Farm-in period and the term of the proposed Joint Venture, Newcrest will have a first right of refusal over those blocks within the Havieron licence (E45/4701) not included in the Tenement Blocks.

The AISC will include the tolling charge which will include the costs to process the ore but there are no added capex costs for the plant itself and as it says leveraging the rest of the fascilities.
Now the farm in agreement is complete the right of first refusal on Scallywag is also finished

The Feasibility Study will know doubt change shape of the Decline nearer the ore body.
I say this because at the moment we have approvals for an exploration Decline.
When the production requirements are known for a 3mt operation then more tunnels, shafts and vent risers will be required.
I would expect an acceleration after the FS to include more gangs and machines to reduce any slippage time

Hi Peter
I’m sure you know that a lot more is happening for you 80 year olds to prosper.
I just concentrated on Havieron as that is lower risk.

I know Callum was excited about Rudall and that track that Liam found the other night means drilling this year hopefully. Twice the size of Havieron, an area bigger than Scallywag
Hope you enjoying your new place

Where else are you going to find a 10moz orebody with maybe 2 bulk caves sat next to it?
Nil chance

How will this share be any good for me at my age (21).
Just take a look at that graph of oz/m how that has grown and what Shaun says about it cos he luvs it.
10,000 oz at the top coming back in to 0 below 1,000m.
It’s at 0 cos there’s nil information.
Drilling increases this amount and he is expecting this graph to be vertical.
That’s 10,000 x1,000 = 10m oz.
That’s from the MRE zone ie most of the SE crescent.
Over a short period of time this is going to grow the asset base.

Over a slightly longer period at the production commencement and into the Decline going further down we see the start of the underground fan drilling.
This will bring in the m/oz of the bulk cave areas ie the central ovoid and the Eastern Breccia.
10,000oz /m for each area may be achievable .
As the Decline deepens knowledge becomes more available.

We are at a point where most of the information for this ore body has been found without great expense in long drilling.

1 to 2 years will see the Decline reach the ore body ,
Production infrastructure start
Small increases in the MRE every 6 months.
Production

2-5 years
Decline reaches base of bulk caving
Underground exploration drilling
Production ramping up on SLOS operation
MREs announced every 6 months
Conveyor Decline in progress
10-15moz achieved

5-10years
Bulk cave infrastructure starts
Bulk caving to EB commenced
SLOS full production in progress

Hi Talldave
You got your facts incorrect about the $85m.
There was never any talk of an additional 5% to 35% that was offered so we could keep it.
SD did not want to let it go and it hasn’t cost us anything to keep it.
Perhaps now you can put it behind you and focus on the 30%
This bizarre situation of this deal has been doing my head in since Xmas let’s just all forget it and move on.
Hopefully theirs fireworks on Monday from Shaun.

Most of you wouldn’t listen to me and some are still harping on about takeovers.
Well forget it unless someone else puts an offer in NCM are comfortable with their 70% position.
There’s more macro factors out their that has swayed this decision.
Newcrest are building their holdings in North America just take a look at the presentation to see.
It’s nearly all about Brucejack, there’s far more quick profits there especially with Bidens new mining policies.
We have 30% of a ginormous orebody and we are going mining if you don’t like it exit before the train leaves the station.

It’s not 5%, it’s not 25% , it’s 30% we’ve just been given back 20% more Ore than we had 2 days ago.
You should all be jumping up and down.

Hi Mattyboy
Where will they find it though in a time frame to suit Telfer.
The closest to production I can see is Minyari and Blackhills and both nowhere near producing anything for Telfer.
They still have a few options at Telfer and are re looking over their licences from lessons learned with Ggp.
This could be an opportunity for Shaun to offer assistance

Hi Ben
The scenario with Telfer is just the same as before and won’t change till it gets Havieron ore.
They are scratching around to find anything worth putting through the plant, it’s still earning money and had a free cash flow of $103m last year, it should have been $194m but the old hedging deals knocked 90m off it.
The copper credits were good last year with high prices but this coming year may be difficult with weaker ore grades and lower prices.
It was intending to close in 2023 only as far back as 2019.
When the Havieron Decline gets into full speed watch it go, they will be looking at other ways to accelerate, safely I might add.
There is more scope for more gangs and machines.

There should be no concerns now we are going mining
All aboard :))

Hi Taverham
A mineral of 6.5mozeq is the mineralisation in that specific zone.
The next step up to a probable ore reserve is 2.9mozeq suggesting this is the amount of mineralisation that will be found.
It’s the reserves that can be booked on accounts as an asset not the resources.
The next step up is a measured resource where the information can give some security of a definite outcome.
It’s all about risk.

NCM appendix 4e
Page 34

https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/2220819_Newcrest%202022%20Full%20Year%20Results%20%E2%80%93%20Appendix%204E_1.pdf

Drilling at Havieron transitioned from Greenfield to Resource Definition to support the Havieron FS, with overall drilling activity at Havieron decreasing during the period. Additionally, after Newcrest met its farm-in
requirements, Greatland Gold covered its 30% share of all exploration expenditure for the majority of the current period

Why didn’t NCM take the 5%?

I’m baffled why they didn’t.
They must have gambled on them winning the independent value being in their favour and missed the chance to accept Shaun’s $85m.
Must be kicking themselves.

If you look at the Sprott note they quote a figure of $276/oz in the ground
On the reserves alone the value comes to around $42m.
This can be the only reason not to take the 5% for $60m.

Their hurdle of 15x the initial investment fell short.

If you look at it another way
$1800 gold price less $1000 AISC (for clarity)
160,000oz 5% ore reserves = $128m revenues

$60m x 15 =$900m
That seems a bit short sighted to me, if it had been a green field fresh start on new mine, I could have understood it.
What if the gold price does rise to $2,500 and what if Hav north comes good or the EB doubles in size they will have missed out big time.

But they have said they are comfortable with 70%, so fair play Sandeep thank you very much you’ve been a great partner keep it up :))

Why is Shaun and most long term holders delighted to have retained the 5%?

Ore reserves 3.2moz equivalent
25% = 800,000
30% = 960,000

NCM would have had 2.4mozeq 75% now they have 2.24m 70% that is a 5% reduction

Ggp would have had 800,000oz
Now they have 960,000oz

That is a 20% gain

Thank you so much Sandeep I think your brilliant:))

Hi STR
The loan repayments will be taken out of first revenues nothing to do with FS.
There is no certainty of any dilution.
My interpretation of the total of PI shares is we hold over 70%, the 50% doesn’t include nominee accounts. This is the mistake that the GDXJ made and had to go back to the market and buy more shares forcing the price up to 27p

With this scenario in mind of Ggp retaining the 30% is why I asked Shaun in London if there was going to be a dilution would us Private investors be able to participate and he went through the options saying the Rights Issue route is expensive and laborious, the Primary Bid route is not ideal for PI . The Australian system is far easier.
I personally wouldn’t mind a dilution to clear the debt if we could participate.
He was quite forceful in that he would rather see a reduction in the share issue and repeated a few times about numerous high street banks wanting to lend him the money.
I think debt is going to be the way forward.
I am biting my nails cos I can see Panorama going for a farm in. There’s so much happening all around it and nothing happening on our licence. I don’t want that to happen.

From Dips notes
Question
(Analysts)

Sandeep and team, question is on Havieron. I note you didn't exercise the option you had to get an extra 5%. Can you just talk through why a little bit broader, isn't the value of this 5% only going to grow? And what are some of the key assumptions in the option process you were clearly uncomfortable with paying for? And I note that you do talk about your return hurdles, which I imagine that this -- everything you've talked about in the past, I would have thought this would need it.

Answer
Sandeep Biswas (Executives)

Yes. So, as you know -- well, as I said, the first 70% cost of $65 million, which is an excellent investment. And if you look at our -- as Sherry alluded to, we've got a very rigorous capital allocation program. We've got a lot of projects to allocate capital to. And obviously, we've also got our shareholders to think about as well. And in that context, it didn't make the returns compared to putting that $60 million somewhere else. We didn't need to do it, and we didn't think it would deliver the sort of returns and the sort of thinking our shareholders expect from an owner's mindset in this company.

They must be bonkers I think I could why.
I will have a look over the weekend