Member Info for Dip666

Someone on TG pointed out that Cadia FS was still forecast to be out this quarter in the Sept Quarterlies,

https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2022-10/221027_Newcrest%20Sep%202022%20Quarterly%20Report.pdf

Excerpt from cover page:
Cadia two stage plant expansion in commissioning and PC2-3 first draw bell fired; PC1-2 Feasibility Study now expected to be released in the December 2022 quarter5

CP - I'm always happy to consider other viewpoints and approaches, perhaps the fact many of your posts judge the approach of others is why you find yourself getting judged. I an always happy to back my opinions up.

So to summarise my thoughts for you around the DFS as discussed recently:

- GGP funding framework appears based off not the PFS but assumed 3mtpa from DFS expectations which have been signposted for a long time, also in print.
- The funding framework is based off existing JORC Resource estimates, adding an unplanned for larger and/or more higher category JORC resource will strengthen the case for those involved in Due Diligence in the funding process no doubt.
- Should there be a secondary extraction method included, given the challenges NCM face It is logical to presume it will have been added because additional Capex results in optimising ROI from the project, therefore Shaun should have a strong case for closing funds over and above existing ceiling.
- Recent AGM provided feedback that NCM are seeing around 6-8% in additional inflationary costs, can't carry directly into DFS projections but certainly not too worrying even if marginally higher in the DFS IMO.

CP - let's go into a bit more detail matching company statements with known challenges.
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=592

'Yeah, well, I think the benefits are around optimization. Just in the last question on the drilling, I mentioned that the resource had a cut off of November 2021. It really would have been extraordinary to come out with a study based on 13 months out of date data. And I think people have listened to comments I've made over the last year or so.'
- The PFS was for a lower amount of assumed Capex , the funding framework agreed in principle is for a lot more money
- The above statement indicates a larger resource in DFS, this will aid ROI/LOM aspects and enable capability for more funding.

'It's good but people should be confident it's going to continue to get better, even if we can now, you know complete a study that captures more of the optimisation, that captures more of the drilling. And shows that increase from 2 million tonnes to 3 million tonnes (per annum), which is a 50% increase, albeit I think there should be an expectation that if you increase the size of a mine by 50% and there is clearly some inflationary pressure, I think there should also be some expectation that that will come at some cost.
But I'd like to highlight that we kind of planned for that. We went out there, we did the equity, we did the debt, we didn't fund the PFS, cost of CapEx, we funded our view on an enlarged Havieron and gave ourselves a really neat buffer. So, I think that in essence the benefit is seeing a better more realistic Havieron… is a better outcome for shareholders.'
- The funding framework appears to be based on assumed DFS projections of 3mtpa from a single decline NOT 2mtpa.

'So, there's actually three parts to that question. So, to start with, we have a high degree of confidence that we would expect a meaningful increase in the resource. Again, just echoing back my earlier comments around the successful last 12… coming into 30 months of drilling.
Then the next part of that question is around the decline. Just to revisit that the PFS had 2 million tonnes per annum coming up a single decline, the expectation of the feasibility study is 3 million tonnes still coming up that single decline.
So there isn’t the additional CapEx of a whole new decline, for good order there will be overtaking bays, I think they'll actually be overtaking lanes so to speak just to make that single decline more productive to take up the efficiency of that from 2 to 3 million tonnes.
So that will come with some additional CapEx. But I think that that is a... what's lovely about that is actually it lowers the overall capital intensity. What should lower the overall capital intensity of the project, i.e., you'll be getting more ounces and more NPV (Net present value) per unit of capital.'
-Shaun seems confident the team have funding for presumed assumptions in DFS alongside an expectation of better NPV to aid the business case.

CP, Shaun has stated we remain 'well funded' officially until the DFS confirms the exact amount so I agree it isn't set in stone and he can't legally or without a shred of doubt say 'fully funded' until the DFS is published. However, all others are saying is that Shaun has stated confidence that given the expectations for the single decline to move from 2 to 3 mtpa was signposted from the PFS, he stated they have funded with this in mind and given his background and the team's capabilities plenty of reason to feel his confidence is warranted IMO.

Perhaps NCM are planning on adding a second extraction method but I do find it unlikely given Shaun's latest interview. If they are then they should have consulted GGP to warn them of the additional Capex required. Irrespective of that, if NCM have added the above then I assume that it will have added to the business case for a DTM given the pressures on NCM so I have faith Shaun can enable any additional funding required from our strategical partners and banks.

Investing is about speculation on future gains/profit from capital invested and part of that speculation is trying to work out whether we may need additional debt/equity and our capability to obtain it which in turn influences a decision on investment strategy. So that is why many of us try and work out what may be happening in advance than reacting to RNS's alone.

*but the knowledge gained with good AND SOUND PRACTICES always useful.

Morning CP, I thought some good information came from delving into the legislation. In a sense you're correct to say we have other hurdles at the minute and that the NCM AGM is 12 months away and we all differ in how we research things and also how far ahead we look :-)

As for the 5%... I found researching that useful as now understand the JORC and Valmin codes, various valuation techniques and how resource estimates are built. It will serve me well on other investments but I'm also more realistic and informed around these matters than I was in 2020. Research isn't always about finding a definitive answer, in fact it rarely is unless you can eradicate all bias and doubt but the knowledge gained with good always useful. I'm looking further ahead as that is both the nature of my consultancy work and having run a company myself I know you need to plan years ahead and Shaun will be too.

My thoughts are the DFS perhaps keeps to a single decline given Shaun's comments in last interview and NCM's focus on costs and ROI at moment in which case we are probably fine having arranged twice the presumed amount. If adding a 2nd method of extraction actually optimises the metrics being used to assess project viability by NCM then perhaps they will.

CGI Glass Lewis in the AFR article note that NCM's cash flow was 27% lower than the previous reporting period even with growth spending excluded (NCM's excuse) and gold prices fairly unchanged so that declines in gold production were more likely the cause. NCM have a lot of work to do with the numbers, dividend satisfaction and also need to avoid a 2nd strike with renumeration reporting to avoid being forced into BOD changes - interesting developments that I feel will influence GGP/Havieron... for the positive :-)

Lol '2' is not a code, phone just went crazy ;-)

2

@nubi, plenty of info at https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/

Hi Red - I don't have an issue with Peppers, not sure why Ace thinks I am angry and need to settle down as I have only responded with facts and analysis. CP thinks different to most so I expect him to not be on most people's wavelength. Perhaps he meant the subject was trivial rather than me, Bamps or TT posting - well he's wrong , VERY wrong IMO whatever he meant.

Shaun Sun Tzu will be watching with interest as NCM just got a sharp slap across the face from their shareholders and needs to avoid a 2nd strike if they want to keep their BOD intact in 12 months time. If not then changes at their BOD mean different people feeding into strategical and operational decisions at Havieron so simple logic tells you - it matters for those planning to hold GGP into 2024. How absurd to think otherwise to be a bit blunt and I agreed it won't affect DTM as next AGM happening in 12 months time....

NCM will consult major shareholders and ensure they don't fail IMO but still - they have a reason to keep shareholders happy leading into next AGM or face serious consequences - adds even more drama to the tale and perhaps some leverage for us if there is a way - who knows?! :-))

Still not following you Culpepper - we disagreed on potential BOD changes affecting GGP... you've dragged Hydro responding to your post into the mix, I posted yesterday I didn't feel you were a troll. You've taken the aggressive approach by suggesting mine and Bamp's posts were 'chit chat' i.e. inconsequential or trivial so he green binned you, fair enough I say as he adds more value than you or indeed I do to most who read this board.

A debate is GOOD, it lead to me having to explain what I meant that it might affect GGP while IN operation not that we wouldn't be green lit. I then also took time to link up the comments in article with the legislation to try and explain how NCM may face a serious issue next year and why I think changing the people we deal with if we see changes on their BOD will be of importance, BOTH good and bad implications.

People may not agree with my opinion but at least they better understand what the articles are alluding to with 'strikes' and a 'spill meeting' - new knowledge is invaluable. Now I know something about ASX companies I didn't before today and perhaps it will apply to GGP (or not) under a compliance listing? I like to delve into things I don't understand and share the findings, not concerned if anyone agrees or not - but on this point I felt strongly it is a big area of interest so stated my case - never once a personal matter between us.

Culpepper, that was H not me and you mocked H first with the mention of his theory on NCM and GGP AGM as I recall. I have never accused you of being a troll.. to date ;-)

Culpepper - my last reply clearly detailed that IMO there is NO risk to a DTM/DFS however a 2nd strike leads to potential BOD changes at NCM - so it is something to keep an eye on. I think you're angry about yesterday, something I played no part in. Changes to the BOD of a business partner who owns 70% of your only near production asset is meaningful as if this occurred then they may have different ideas on how that asset is run than the current BOD as one very very simple example. Never once did I say it would result in Havieron not being green lit.

Imagine you run a retail store with someone, but the other person owns 70% and they are then replaced or sell their share to someone else, it does affect you if the new business partner decides on a huge cost cutting exercise or perhaps huge expansion that you now need to fund your share of. It might be a change for the BETTER perhaps as might be a more reasonable business partner who decides better business terms for you, this translates to ANY level of business. Again - am talking more about strategical and operational dynamics during production, not suggesting Havieron won't be proceeding. A realigned NCM BOD might be more supportive than the current one too.

Your comments remind me of the people who were complaining of the new employees Shaun added to GGP, the same employees who helped ensure we weren't stitched up in the option exercise and then bought for peanuts by acquiring funding at PFS stage. So I suggest you 'get real' and learn to evaluate GGP and our JV partner in a 360 aspect.

@Culpepper, I wouldn't ever expect Havieron not to be greenlit BUT changes in senior management of a corporation that owns 70% of a shared asset is a big matter to keep an eye on.
Different ideas, different dynamics, different strategies and different personalities to deal with and in a relationship that is expected to span decades - yes very important.
A new CFO has been quite instrumental in certain areas already at NCM - but perhaps this granular level of detail isn't for you, so I agree, no need for further 'chit-chat' with you :-))

@Culpepper - anything that might affect the BOD structure i.e the people who decide the strategy of the corporation in a company that holds 70% of your only near production asset is meaningful, given that this could occur before we get into production officially.

More than 36 per cent of Newcrest Mining investors have voted against the company’s remuneration report, heeding proxy advisers’ concerns that bonuses paid to chief executive Sandeep Biswas were overly generous compared to the company’s financial performance.
ISS ultimately gave qualified support to Newcrest’s remuneration report, but it was not enough to avoid a “first strike”, with 36.6 per cent of shareholders voting against the motion at Wednesday’s annual meeting of shareholders.
Under the Australian laws, a spill motion against the board of directors of a company is triggered if more than 25 per cent of shareholders vote against a remuneration report two years in a row.
____________________________________________________
*Details of the Two Strikes Rule:
- The "first strike" would occur if a remuneration report for a listed company received a NO vote of 25 per cent or more.
- The next year's remuneration report would be required to explain whether and how shareholders’ concerns had been taken into account.
- If that second remuneration report also received a NO vote of 25 per cent or more at the AGM, the Two Strike Rule would automatically apply.
- The AGM would be presented with a motion to call a "spill meeting". The notice of the AGM would have to inform members of the possibility of a spill motion and presumably would include a proxy form to cover that eventuality.

*If the "spill motion" were passed by a simple majority:
- the company would be required to call the spill meeting within 90 days;
- all board positions would be vacated immediately before the spill meeting;
- the spill meeting would vote on whether to re-appoint the existing board.

*This requirement would be subject to two exceptions:
- there would be no need to hold the spill meeting if the entire board resigned and was replaced before the spill meeting was due to be held;
- the spill motion would not affect managing directors who, under listing rules, continued to hold office indefinitely without being re-elected to the office.
- The spill meeting would only vote on whether existing directors would remain in office. There would be no opportunity to vote in a different board. If the meeting did not re-elect at least two directors, the draft Bill says that the two directors with the highest votes would be elected. This ensures that the company retains the minimum of three directors required by the Corporations Act (the managing director and two non-executive directors).

@Culpepper - I think you missed the point about a 2nd strike next year leading to a spill motion i.e potential BOD changes so quite critical for the company they get this sorted out ASAP.

https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2010/december/boards-to-face-spill-after-remuneration-vote

This link will help if issues with paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fcompanies%2Fmining%2Fnewcrest-cops-another-strike-on-exec-pay-20221109-p5bwvl

@Culpepper - the kind of dissent that could lead to BOD changes so quite important IMO

Another article here:

https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/newcrest-cops-another-strike-on-exec-pay-20221109-p5bwvl

Also link to view webcast, Q&A after AGM address but not viewed yet myself:

https://webcast.openbriefing.com/9125/player/index.php?player_id=49600

NEWCREST 2022 AGM ADDRESS AND PRESENTATION

https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2022-11/221109_2022%20AGM%20-%20Chairman%20and%20MD%27s%20Address_1.pdf