Member Info for Dip666

A filter can be set to send any emails not from a contact already in your address book straight into a junk filer and their emails are likely handled by assistants's too.
Sorry - but I do feel emailing NCM is a waste of effort and makes it appear as if GGP has very emotional and unsophisticated investors - the kind that are prime for manipulation if one was of a mind.
But at the end of the day - it's up to each of us how we react to the SP so good luck but really not a great idea IMO as won't accomplish anything.
Shaun has stated that he feels that there are many levels of great teamwork in the day to day work around exploration, mine planning and processing. The edict to delay the MRE has no doubt come right from the top so should be handled between Shaun and the top tier of management at NCM.
Leave it up to Shaun, many of us were not complaining when he was hiring the same staff that will help protect us now and also advising we hold fire on criticising the recent placing - most of those same people are now saying it's best to leave this to our very capable management team :-)

@MassiveRay - HAvieron MRE 2 was expected to be published alongside NCM's HY Financial Results last week which usually include a Resources and Reserves report from NCM as initially Shaun communicated that it wouldn't be published in Dec 2021 around a year after MRE 1 as many PI's expected it to be, so he said he expected it this month.
As can be seen from his comments from the latest Proactive interview, NCM changed their mind and Shaun thinks Sandeep might have implied it might be coming around the DFS due in December Quarter from comments made by Sandeep in his presentation around NCM HY results.
The latest RNS GGP issued on 17 Feb the morning after NCM results presentation and release was about clearing up the fact that NCM's Resource & Reserves report had not really had an update on MRE for Havieron.

Excerpt from RNS
Greatland notes that this statement, so far as it relates to Havieron, only restates the previously released statement contained within the Stage 1 South East Crescent Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS"), announced on 12 October 2021. The Company reiterates this Stage 1 study was at a 'point in time' using a 5 February 2021 cut-off for drilling information.

Notes and link to Shaun's Proactive Interview
https://www.mediafire.com/file/arioqq6o2y2aln2/Notes_from_Proactive_Forum_Q%2526A_-_17_Feb_2022.pdf/file

Transcript and link to Sandeeps Presentation
https://www.mediafire.com/file/m47962vt4gju6pt/Notes_from_NCM_HY_Results_-_16_Feb_2022.pdf/file

Also worth listening through the YouTube presentation Antigua, really helped to understand the code after reading through it :-)

Not true Matty, please look through relevant threads here on the BB where everything was discussed in some depth by myself and others a few weeks ago and through all the information on the code and valuations in my link. Exploration related valuation methods are covered by the code too.

Valmin code and related docs plus Valuation example inc. summary/synopsis by myself
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/uv8jaum5kycrr/-+FMV+Valuation

YouTube presentation with great info. on the code and application of it, worth watching the full hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odc0Y0ppI1E&list=WL&index=8

Link to presentation slides that are a good reference to get an overview of the Valmin Code and a bit on the 'Reasonable Test' towards the end (those particular slides are weighted towards one, not all of the valuation approaches):
https://www.csaglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MGEI-2016_The-VALMIN-Code_Ivy-Chen_October_2016.pdf

Whomever the 3rd party assessor/s are, they will be qualified to understand the VALMIN code and as part of judging both valuations will most likely form their own idea of what fair value was at the cut-off points used for the valuations to be able to judge which is closest to FMV. They would probably request anything the deem might be required or indeed 'missing'
Plenty of info. collated here to look into all aspects of the FMV option exercise and Valmin Code for anyone interested, worth also reading the summary and synopsis of the Kharmatagai valuation to see the code at work.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/uv8jaum5kycrr/-+FMV+Valuation

Some excellent insights from a professional into investing in explorer/developers, their volatility and potential aligned to POG and other factors.
https://youtu.be/duKFn81L38s

Some excellent insights from a professional into investing in explorer/developers, their volatility and potential aligned to POG and other factors.
https://youtu.be/duKFn81L38s

Lol, you sound more and more like Aviator.......

Just musing the same thing over on TG in regards to whether GGP can publish their own MRE and perhaps the JV doesn't allow us to publicly publish an updated MRE generated by us as the junior partner as with NCM being in charge of PFS/DFS etc, but for funding purposes it might be that GGP could put one together to JORC standards, even get it approved and use that just for funding and keep it confidential? God knows if possible, but if they can, why not?

@DH - you need to have a think about the different scenario's here and assign a probability to each as the year goes on, and a projection of assumed SP or offer price and decide for yourself whether you stay, derisk or exit, for example I'm now considering at the below when factoring my potential strategy:

1/ Havieron goes to production with us still attached as a junior partner.
2/ NCM successfully offers for and buys our stake of Havieron and we continue on with money in the bank and exploration and perhaps acquisitions of our own.
3/ NCM manages a complete takeover by offering enough to get the requisite votes.

Of course, we also have random events and other considerations such as growth of E.Breccia, potential hits at other targets within the mining lease, JURi JV or elsewhere in the 2022 exploration program GGP has planned. For points 2 and 3 I will evaluate what a successful offer might come in at and judge against my own average holding price.
Stop worrying about what other members are saying when it comes to SP or potential buyout scenarios as frankly we're all guessing, the research and analysis on other matters is more important perhaps such as thatrelated to breaking down the results and geological matters including potential resource size over the life of mine.
Always DYOR and MYOD (make your own decisions). I get fed up of some blaming other posters, shouldn't be investing actively if your primary investing decisions are based on anonymous investors and you don't have the requisite knowledge to make your own informed decisions. If investing long term then invest in something you understand is a a fundamental rule for a reason.

5% option aside, why would NCM harm their own chances of taking Havieron into production with a weaker DFS, they absolutely must try and avoid any kind of 'gap period' as Shaun terms it between Telfer running out of ore for the many reasons stated in the past. NCM will be doing whatever they can to avoid this including in how they deal with potential delays to the decline hitting the ore body.
As for the 5% option, perhaps Shaun seems to be intimating that if the DFS release is when an updated MRE is released for Havieron, then their position is to wait for that before negotiating the price tag for the 5%, which fits into his comments last week in regards to considering the MRE2 fundamental in being able to assume and put forward valuations.

@Hydro- turning into a soap drama with GGP and NCM now mate - GGPEnders, GGPSide, GGP Street - take your pick!
I'm thinking if we end up getting a GGP only MRE made public that relations have really disintegrated so in that eventuality Shaun is now trying to ensure our SP is supported in case of NCM trying to go alone with Hav, but of course we also have a JURI JV so do they then decide to try going for the whole shebang......?
Until then I'm not discounting anything as perhaps, a slim slim chance Shaun can get everyone onside again but of course with recent events things look more likely for us not being production partners in 2024.
Interestingly Sandeep has a complicated set of issues to juggle, can he really claim 30% purchase of a shared asset as 'organic growth' as it's still a large acquisition when all is said and done?
And his shareholders seem to be demanding less expenditure, higher divi's and also fed up of the SP and looking jealously at some of the competitors. Hopefully, this gives Shaun time to manoeuvre while Sandeep tries to find a way around this issue.
On top of that , Sandeep's personal profile is in the bin - a leader at his level having to publicly state he has a coach to assist with his management style is beyond embarrassing and an app developed for employees to feedback to execs on their thoughts of how inclusive the workplace is shows a serious disconnect between workforce and leadership - never a good thing - especially in these #MeToo times with a organisation dealing with First Nations on two continents.
I was aware their shareholders were disgruntled but not so much the staff too - I'll say it again - Sandeep's position looks tenuous to me looking ahead.

The FMV option exercise has the arbitration clause to try and ensure the 5% is valued properly on the vent both parties remain over 10 percent apart in negotiations.
Perhaps GGP could submit their valuation to the arbitrator/s with a JORC compliant MRE they compiled for consideration in theirs....... or an MRE that has been compiled to JORC regulations even if not submitted for approval perhaps alongside exploration upside in their calculations.

@SB - I am certainly not not an expert as only been investing in a meaningful way in explorers since late 2019 so perhaps some of the more experienced mining investors can weigh in on how percentage of ownership might work, and of course we know that just because something is considered 'industry norm', any contract can differ.
Mining JV's often appear to provide >75% Special Approval Rights and >90% Supermajority Approval Rights, the former often being aligned to operating plans, budgets, material changes to development, unbudgeted spend over certain limits, production curtailing/termination etc, while the latter can often cover areas including metal hedging, JV changes /liquidation /dissolution and changes in capital structure etc.
It is why I've been careful not to state this as an absolute as we have no way of knowing exactly what is defined in each specific JV we have with NCM. As always, we're working from assumptions without having specifics on critical areas such as the JV so very much a theory. However if there is some truth in this then NCM may be happy to pay more, also might explain why this 5% option exercise exists, although on the JURI JV they can move from 51-75%.
I did email GGP if there was anything of note that would change in terms of key strategical and operational management of the asset by NCM increasing it's ownership by 5% but have never received a reply - so as I say - just a theory.

Holding the negotiations up for the 5% would be better JB IMO - the more time that passes before putting valuations forward the better, they want the 5% so just stall it at Stage 1 negotiations as a power play for us if possible.
ideally we want an MRE that has been agreed by NCM not just JORC compliant I reckon because if they have agreed to the numbers in the MRE , submitted for JORC approval and published it - then it's harder for them to argue that aspect of the valuation of the mining lease, as we're talking about the same amount of Gold/Copper, just ascribing different values to pay per Oz, as oppose to arguing about the amount of gold and copper and also the value.
The way things seem to be working out, it's looking unlikely that NCM will agree to a range within 10% and we're looking at arbitration - but we don't know what's going on - so who knows. If indeed 75% ownership represents an ability to make key operational and strategical decisions without our input as is common in Oz JV's - then I feel they will be unlikely to not purchase the 5%, even if a 3rd party favours our higher valuation.

LOL very good mate :-)

From Shaun’s comments from the Proactive Forum, he suggested he was taken aback that the updated MRE wasn’t going to be included in the Resources & Reserves report as the plan had been to do so but that when it is published for us to be confident we can expect it to reflect the excellent results of the last 12 months.
He spoke about the good relationships across the mining, processing and exploration teams and that he also speaks to Sandeep regularly and has a good relationship there too.
He said that FMV discussions are ongoing and he believes that the MRE 2 is critical to understanding the value of Hav and reassured us that he has a team in place that understand the current and future value of Hav, and that his team are active managers of the asset and will be able to articulate all this to NCM as part of the process.
He said that the negotiations part of the 5% option exercise run towards the end of this month, and then at some stage valuations will be put forward and ultimately go through an independent process (if not within 10% range) that could be more drawn out but thinks that there are opportunities for both partners to have discussions at any time.
He spoke about value being determined by the provisions of the JV agreement so there are modifications and parameters they have to work within. He also thinks Sandeep might have been implying the MRE coming out around the FS in late 2022 but from a GGP POV he feels that the MRE is essential in discussing the 5% and hinted they would push for that as due to the quality of the results and the fact they cover 10-12 months of exploration, he considers them as a material update that should be released to market and that we should be confident it will happen.
I think Shaun is implying that GGP will argue that they feel they can’t put forward valuations next month without the updated MRE to hand, thereby stalling the process completely until it is…..

@Ben - I don't think Shaun will struggle to borrow regardless and has stated banks are looking favourably at GGP and Havieron as a Brownfield opportunity.
Of course a MRE 2 would have enhanced that further but he can still ensure that the Starter Mine costs are covered and use the revenue and ownership from Havieron once production commences to borrow further for bulk mining if required in future. Probably from the same lenders he may well close a deal with this year, and looking at the potential for arbitration - I suspect he will be focusing on that in the coming months.
Shaun's got the perfect background, connections and credentials to navigate us through the financial hurdles to production :-)

Sandeep's position as CEO looks somewhat tenous to me at the minute:
- Public apology for a culture of bullying under his helm seems to be a desperate PR campaign to perhaps bolster a flagging personal profile amongst shareholders and employees
- Major shareholders wanting a pull back from M&A and growth focus
- Same shareholders wanting to see dividends that have been affected by the above improve in comparison to peers
- SP performance dissatisfaction is also apparent
- Slide in profits due to the fiscal demands of Sandeeps growth focused strategy
I do support Sandeeps long term business strategy in securing a portfolio of Low Cost Tier 1 assets but he seems to have ignored his own shareholders requirements to see more short term ROI on their own investment such as higher dividends.
Again, this could be due to the same personality and management style that has lead to him needing to make a public apology for his style of leadership. He has a vision and a goal and it's going to happen no matter what, he'll ride roughshod over whomever.
Interesting puzzle for Sandeep is if he and the BOD want all of Havieron, how do they navigate justifying the expenditure to these disgruntled major shareholders who seem to have had enough with the last acquisition (Pretium Resources), sliding profits and below par dividends.

@JB - does that apply to your own posts :-))