Member Info for Culpepper

The wording is a little strange, the dates. Whatever, I think it must give Newcrest going on Newmont more control. But although it means something to somebody, I see nothing particularly strange.

Well, we’ll go round in circles on something else, then, I suppose. I don’t object.

It’s not good nor bad. Timing? Don’t know - just coincides with Newmont taking over next year, who presumably want to take it on.

Done now. So we’ll all move on.

I think the conversation was more about why Newmont would choose now to exercise that right and so on.

What would you like to move on to?

Off you go.

Well, it’s a pretty safe bet big business interests won’t be doing anything to prejudice themselves, and like Ggp have an eye to what comes next, and in maybe 10 years in terms of succession management, exploration, development and mining production.

Wouldn’t disagree, but yes, that’s taking the view Ggp are at the extent of their exploration ability with what they have.

You may be right, and I presume this is Newmont’s choice, following consultation. A.little tidy up for them not coming into effect until they have the reins. But I have difficulty in seeing it as removing ambiguity. There’s a reason for it. We don’t know what might, or might not, be behind it, Ggp vis a vis Newmont. Maybe simply as per RNS, it is mostly, and by mutual agreement.

I make nothing of it, but wonder what the perceived advantage was as seen by Newcrest/Newmont come next year. And I was taking the view that the enlarged team would be more likely taking on responsibilities rather than losing them. Perhaps, RNS coming so closely, there is more to yesterdays Rio RNS than met the eye, at that time, but mentioned again today.

It is logical to align with Newcrest.

It is illogical to believe holding back an MRE will affect negotiations between partners, one a buyer and one a seller perhaps.

But anyway, I anticipate MRE way before Newmont make any decisions around Havieron. They have publicly stated interim transition will focus on that, and that process will not include decisions ( I assume, acquisitions and disposals ) I do not see movement on that, publicly, until 2024.

Dip. I get the interpretation bit and the singing from the same hymn sheet by the partners for public consumption. And Newcrest hold sway.

Yet they will both be working from the same data, if it comes to negotiation, as they always have been. So nothing is ‘secret’.

“This red herring about the MRE making things more expensive for GGP to buy, is frankly, bullox. All involved in Australia and NEM, know exactly what our current MRE stands at, the only saps that don't know, is us.”

It was a town hall throw-away. It was seized on.

I know I was at odds with others on that. If you are talking valuation of Havieron ( and any knock on effect ) then the managers are always going to know at least as much as their JV partners.

As others have said, I don’t think yesterdays farm in announcement is extraordinary - 2 parties seeing something to mutual advantage, not letting prospective land go to waster. But a tie up with a much larger entity is a move-up for Ggp, and I find the specific mention of distance to Telfer processing particularly interesting, from a strategic viewpoint so far as Rio and Ggp are concerned.

I think an earlier poster referring to the MRE as only relevant to the mining plan was unhelpful in the context of what many shareholders want to see.

It’s very unlikely to come before August earliest. Decision made by Newcrest, with which Ggp do not dissent.

Newmont

“This tenure complements the Company's current ground position to provide a 105km contiguous holding. The addition of the Paterson South Project more than doubles our current footprint with the most prospective targets within 50km of Telfer.”

Telfer remains key to Havieron/Ggp, and at the moment increasingly it appears to Rio also.Something that will not be lost on Newmount either.

Seemed a bit strange post that one. Never mind, maybe just me.

Thought you knew that.

It is not exactly the same conversation, but I note the link with Rio somewhat goes against one of our posters views - “Do you really think Rio and IGO would want Ggp as a partner backed by Wyloo, they will swoop in on their joint ventures.”

You just can’t tell, can you, til the RNS drops?

Given the relative proximity of reaching the top of the Havieron orebody, it remains Greatland's preference not to utilise the proposed A$220 million seven-year debt and associated hedging facilities until the Havieron Feasibility Study is finalised.”

In other words, there is a firm grip on financial liabilities and maintaining a healthy balance sheet. Any proposed raise may be in that connection, with the emphasis on financial flexibility.

If Greatland completes the Stage 1 Farm-In and elects to acquire a 51% joint venture interest in the Paterson South Project, an unincorporated joint venture (PSJV) will be formed between Greatland Paterson South Pty Ltd (51%) and RTX (49%). Greatland Paterson South Pty Ltd will be the manager of the PSJV……”

A step in the direction at least of making greater use of the larger Ggp team talents.

And there’s a newly revealed interested party in the wings, when it comes to Havieron and Telfer.