Member Info for Culpepper

Different subject now. So that’s OK.

I imagine you’re still keen on forking out for the whole shooting match?

Not concerned. Looking for advantage. I really will pack this conversation in. I accept it’s going nowhere.

Finally, what do you think puts Ggp in the best position. A requirement to process Ggp ore, or none at all?

Goodnight.

I won’t address my detractors, most of you lot, individually.

There seems, to me, a spectacular lack of interest in the existing legal position and its relevance.

Simply about Telfer, not the rest of it.

I thought somebody might know, town hall and things. Nobody does. Never mind. I don’t either.

Negotiation. Sitting tenant at Telfer, who has a right for ore to be processed, come what may, and not having to buy it if we don’t want to. And happy, if the price is right, to accommodate a means of Telfer divestiture, and a portion, with others, of any of the 70% they would be selling if they divest Telfer.

Yes. Got there this morning. Signing off on this one.

Nobody other than me thinks it worth a hoot considering the forward implications of what Newmont and any successive owner just may, or may not, be said to be tied into in terms of ore processing for Ggp.

Is the penny dropping anywhere?

Because if Newcrest’s intentions to process ore at Telfer as expressed in JVA summary can be translated into an agreement for Newmont to do the same as a result of JV purchase, then Newmont are stuffed with it to Ggp advantage, subject to any renegotiation.

Correct. That’s my point. What is the legal position re. Telfer?

Do you know?

I have an interest in arrangements made years ago to process Havieron ore, and whether Newmont are required to do so at Telfer by virtue of buying the JV.

Nobody can answer.

I respect your disinterest in that.

I consider myself locked in, with confidence it will turn out OK.

Dip. I’m not annoyed. It’s not the stupidest conversation on here. And Germans find it funny.

I went there, because Telfer is key to Havieron, and there are those who foresee the possibility of negotiations. It may also be key to other finds.

On funding.

Completion of the debt facilities and Wyloo Placement will enable Greatland to be fully funded for its 30 per cent share of the Havieron project development based upon the October 2021 2Mtpa Pre-Feasibility Study; and well positioned to be fully funded in respect of the Feasibility Study targeting an expansion to around 3Mtpa due in the December 2022 quarter

It’s blinking fundamental. And seems not to have the weight it warranted at the time.

I’ll leave it there.

Dip. What is that to do with an agreement that binds Newmont, or Newcrest for that matter to processing Ggp ore. It would be nice if somebody could point to that.

Can you?

Ace. It is one of the things on which we firmly agree. There may even be another one.

Dip. We have not read the JVA. You say there are less optimal parts.

The summary, to me if nobody else, talking of Newcrest ‘intentions’ does not fill me with confidence that it carries the weight an ‘agreement’ might for a new owner of their own Telfer asset. Mr. Day has not been pressed, or chosen to comment. But the wording has changed. Why?

That is all.

In your case JD, it is not only a sense of humour that appears lacking.

Dip. I think I was clear in that and a subsequent reply. In summary, I am talking of Telfer. It appears to me, having read what we have of the JVA, and a little underlined by the change of wording, that the JV when formed went to intentions. An understanding at that time between Newcrest and Greatland, less proscriptive than other matters, such as tolling. It may come to a matter of interpretation. But it does not imply the same legal force.

When this was raised before, without looking back, I think it was you who commented that the wording had probably changed to reflect greater transparency between Mr. Day and shareholders, as a result of the Newmont bid.

Whatever anyone else is up to, are thinking, I have no doubt he ( and his board ) are working in the best interests of the projects, and therefore it’s shareholders, some of whom are better placed than others.

The flagship, Havieron, was a whole lot simpler until Newmont pitched up. A spanner in the works, as Ace says.

I prefer clarity. I have not read the JV. I don’t think anybody here has read the full text. I read somewhere, there is so much, comment that it seemed to favour Newcrest, specifics not given.

If agreements are lacking, it can impinge on any future negotiations.

I doubt that Newmont would wish to interfere with the viability/profitability of it’s own assets.

I read that before, of course, That goes to the ‘intention’ of the parties, and the recent change of wording in the small print I mentioned in my longer post.

Newmont were not one of the parties.

It becomes legalistic IF there is dissent.