Member Info for Dip666

Tymers, go on then and share your forecast on your favourite shareholder managed forum GGPChat - don't be scared homie!

p.s can always use MediaFire or other similar platforms too :-)

Toffers - where's the quote where Tom Palmer specifically said he was divesting Hav and/or Telfer?

There wasn't.

Toffers - just another opinion from Josh Chiat this time, again, it's not coming from the horses mouth as such which is what I'm arguing.

I do agree there is a very strong case for a divestment scenario but just shoving URL's into a chat forum especially from a journo's POV doesn't make something set in stone or flesh out a theory. You must be able to do more than just shove URL links into LSE containing journalist opinions to flesh out your theories.

Think this convo is going no where as you're just going to reply with URL links!

"heavily hinted he would sell non-core assets if a merger of the two companies was completed."

Toffers, not really much to go on tehre :-)|

He's articulated $2bn worth of optimisation in 2 years and $500m of synergies annually will be targeted since the deal announced but where does he expressly state he's selling Hav/Telfer in that article or any detailed plans for any of NCM's assets?

But still an assumption - one shared by many TBF but not a fact set in stone that you could prove as an absolute truth using that article...

He may well be planning it but all your excerpt is stating is 'non-core assets' not which specific assets, you're assuming like many are again that Hav/Telfer will be considered non-core, so I'd advise you spend some time explaining why you consider them non-core from newmont's perspective. If I have strong opinions I back them up with some legwork to argue my case.

Toffers - in that article where does Tom expressly imply that he's selling Hav/Telfer in February?

Now it is true NEM will probably move quickly if they want rid of Hav/Telfer with a willing buyer in GGP, but where does he express that in this article exactly? Or again if it's what he doesn't say as you like to say, then build your theory out...

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fcompanies%2Fmining%2Fdisappointed-newmont-talks-to-newcrest-over-information-access-20230224-p5cn8s%23

Also, in general he'd said they'd look to make optimisations over 2 years speaking in July 20 2023 earnings call, so while I agree any plans around Hav/Telfer should be executed quickly whether acquisition or divestment based, nothing is set in stone until they confirm their plans.

Maybe some talks are happening in background but also a valid theory could be that Shaun is still waiting for NEM to play their hand in 2024 than planning for a specific deal in play.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001164727/d96e6563-c529-4fad-b176-c532c04b3ed7.pdf

The thing I find amusing about interviews is that many folk only hear what they want to hear or try and fit the words into a desired outcome vs studying what is being said with an open mind :-))

Toffers - he seems to have suggested he's going to wait for Newmont to take over and offer them a chance for a peer review for MRE than rush it out... seems as if they haven't

* okay let's give you a simpler question about the independent MRE that you said you were going to going to publish what update can you give on progress and did NCM take up your offer of being involved in the peer review

- so that we continue to work on that technically we will so at the right time once that work is we think in more of a final draft form we would share that with them and who knows that might kind of enter around that transition with the Newmont ownership

- so you this a slightly more complex period than it was in March 2022 when I think we last independently released a MRE

- that said we're committed to getting the work done we continue to walk that forward I'd like to achieve that December quarter timetable that we set for ourselves I might just you know add that you know we will be mindful of you know we value the relationship with Newcrest and Newmont

- it's always been our preference to release Resources and Reserve updates with the partner so if Newmont does come in I think we would want to continue to give them that same opportunity for peer review but that work is being undertaken both internally we'll also get it externally reviewed for confirmation and of course my expectation is our joint venture partner would also want a peer review and we would appreciate and want that to happen

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=798

Hi guys, that was from feedback from the folk in Telegram group from those who attended as I wasn't able to make the Town Hall as too busy to take a day off for it.

I assume this is his opinion and he did also tell them about an exploration based company not being the best fit for him, which I agree with. He's very corporate and you'd need someone a little bit more like Heddle to drag that speculative money in if we sold Hav stake without another defined opportunity.

Perhaps could consider acquiring an operating asset from the funds but I suspect he'd find himself employed in Twiggy's empire somewhere in that scenario ... highly doubt Wyloo keen to sell either vs developing a presence in Patterson via GGP. Long term you'd think there are going to be more discoveries from someone/somewhere in the region.

Hi Z:

Is SD building a reserve ($220m (banks), $50m (Wyloo)) to provide "equity" for a loan?

- certainly a strong case for this opinion

Is he deferring the ASX listing because there could be a sale?

- Again, yes I think besides reasons stated such as present SP being a factor, GGP is also waiting to see what Newmont plan as if an opportunity to buy Hav/Telfer then a useful opportunity to raise funds for an acquisition

All the workers contracts end in June 2024. Why is that?

- Aren't contracts the nature of a project in development stages in this industry with FID still due?

- Plus this aligns with Oz financial year, is that a factor perhaps?

The FS is being pushed back?

- It makes sense for Newmont to review, perhaps amend and then release DFS and DTM as new majority owners but they also need to decide what they intend to do with entire portfolio. Shaun stated that a DFS would be expected by when decline hits ore body, so this is a potential ETA into 2024.

NEM aren't pushing out an MRE(2)?

- Well we don't know their plans until they take over and declare them, will be interesting to see if GGP issues their own and if NEM agreed to be involved in a Peer Review, any DFS would need an updated MRE surely after all this time...

Wyloo could be the future owners of Hav with GGP as a minority JV partner.

- Valid theory TBF

- Perhaps Wyloo buy Telfer and we buy Hav with their assistance, plenty of potential scenarios :-)

SD has consistently stated that given the right price, he would recommend the sale of GGP's ownership @ Hav.

How much would YOU sell for: 30p. 50p?

- Not a fan of divestment with current SP, I doubt NEM could justify a 500% plus premium to their own shareholders for instance, the real question to me is... at what level does Shaun have to present an offer to SH's

Thought I’d have a look at the latest Glass Lewis recommendations on incentives and performance measurement after Shaun’s response in Webinar but it’s actually a very interesting read in other regards too for investors, the section looking at incentives is from page 37 onwards.

https://www.glasslewis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/UK-Voting-Guidelines-GL-2022.pdf

* and broadly what are your thoughts on the timing very roughly

- well I think what I'm trying to do Donald if I'm open is just not create a market expectation on timing I think what I'm really trying to do is say we're preserving the option and we'll look to do that at the right time and you know going back to my Churchill quote I think it's about timing the market

- and so I don't want to put parameters and create an expectation what I want to be able to do is say we now think it's the right time and we've done our homework we're ready to go we can do this in short order from this and I think it's been important the journey we've been on I think creating that expectation being informative with shareholders around how we think of it I think sets us up to have support to execute that ASX cross listing when the opportunity arises

And this from last weeks webinar:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=798

- yeah look when it comes to the ASX listing I think what I want to kind of say is that we our primary thought process is around what's in the interest of existing shareholders and there's a great Winston Churchill quote about when the facts change I change my mind what do you do and we just felt the circumstances in the market had moved and perhaps that's because of some you know pretty unhelpful media speculation around a capital raising which was not necessarily the intent

- so we just felt wasn't the right time to undertake an ASX listing we want to do that you around creating value and augmenting value for our existing shareholder base so really the purpose of that announcement was to give people comfort and perhaps remove a perception of an overhang

- whether that was correct or incorrect you know it was the perception that we wanted to address and again super appreciate the support of Wyloo, it's great to have a supportive strategic holder it’s even better when that's an extreme extraordinarily well-funded group so they were able to bring in what we thought was a really helpful $50 million debt facility

- there's no dilution as part of that and what that did was enabled us to articulate on the market we have $110 million available to us historically at our at our expenditure rate that gives us a burn profile you know deep well past any kind of contemplation we have around completing the decline and I think with that in place it gave the market confidence that that that an equity raising was not necessarily required

- so I think that's how we thought about it we're going to continue to work with the ASX you know finalize that option we still think in the medium to long term that's in the interest of shareholders, we've done some work we'll continue to take advantage of that and complete the process but we'll look to be opportunistic so I don't want to put a time frame at and set an expectation but I think we would continue to consider that if we felt it was in the interest of shareholders and I think the answer is when because over time and we did have that slide earlier in the presentation around the peer group over time we do think the ASX augments the platform that we have in London here and further there's a number of Australian funds that ASX mandate locked

- they buy a number of our peer group but they can't buy us because we're not on the ASX exchange that's what their mandate allows them to buy they can come and buy that stock in London as so long as we have some link to the ASX so we still believe this the right path but just deciding on that timing

contd..

Newmont will have to decide what they're doing in early 2024 with DFS due and decline to hit the ore body, I just think GGP are awaiting their decision on what they choose to do with Havieron/Telfer.

As for ASX - this was the response from Proactive Interview:

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=789

*We'll see a bit of an update here as far as the planned ASX listing. What's the current thinking?

- Yeah, thanks, Andrew. In terms of the ASX it was a cross-listing so we're gonna remain in the London market, which is our home market and really important to us. But because it's just the adding across listing, we really felt we had the flexibility to finesse the time. So from our point of view, we've been a little bit disappointed with our share price performance over the last few months.

And there's a great Winston Churchill quote, When the facts change, I changed my mind, what do you do? So for me, I think when the facts change with the Share, share price suppression. It just wasn't the right time to try to open up a new market front on the ASX.

So we think let's continue to walk that forward in the background and have that prepared, but really we just didn't think it was the right time and in the interest of existing shareholders to open up that new market now.

CP, no one suggests anyone is going to pull the wool over anyone's eyes...merely timing of a MRE or DFS release and approach taken with building conclusions gives you a better outcome based on whether GGP end up buying or fending off Newmont bidding. Shaun seems to think these two scenarios more likely than JV continuing and expressed that the current team is based around production at Havieron not divestment as a desired option.

Data is just data, it has to be analysed and conclusions formed which are always subjective, look at the Newcrest Scheme Booklet, chose to ignore GGP MRE and instead use our SP as a factor! If these public releases don't matter why did GGP release an RNS about what they felt was an outdated and inaccurate representation of Havieron FMV...

Who knows, maybe Toffers is the sane one And Rio buy up every single acre of the Paterson, hell maybe they even buy Newmont as they decided Gold was a new primary focus lol

You say that CP... but it's obvious GGP's team disagree about there being no strategical benefit in considering the release of an independent MRE from the comms and strategy coming from Shaun, you'd assume he's saying and doing what he is for good reason or perhaps he should bring you onto the BOD :-))

Consider how previously NCM seemed to have strategically held back releasing an updated MRE for the option exercise wanting to underpin valuation on an outdated PFS. Yes, it would be normal for both sides of a transaction to look to achieve best value but one critical factor in any negotiation is - how willing is each party to sell or buy? Intent of each party always has a strong effect on how likely a deal is. Are both sides invested in a transaction or is one resistant?

For instance if GGP would prefer not to divest their stake they are going to be more resistant to doing any deal if they feel they're unlikely to get an offer in 2024 that would return the same long term benefits of going into production and grow a company from. If so, surely they'd prefer they haven't released an up to date MRE and leave a valuation range more open to justification to push for a higher price as MRE's and valuations are subjective - you can remain compliant with JORC and Valmin codes and as we saw have a greater than 30% disparity of valuations with the Option Exercise.

I highly doubt NCM or GGP's submissions weren't compliant given the - the assessor/s just used their own subjective opinion on which they felt was more realistic which the independent MRE from GGP using data within the data cut-off period seems to have swayed them towards. MRE's and Feasibility studies are how you decide whether to develop a project, assist funding and underpin commercial value so releasing something publicly will shape any negotiations. Given we don't know whether those might be as a buyer or seller... makes sense to hold fire for now IMO.

It's very complex CP whether looking at it from partnership synergy with a minor partner releasing their own MRE which perhaps indicates a lack of alignment to external viewers and seems very irregular to usual practice, or the Telfer\Hav paradox for Newmont or GGP with the two assets seeming closely interdependent.

As Pete says while GGP could pursue their own processing plant it adds costs and time to the production pathway and also as Bamps often points out we need the tailings for Paste Backfill, so very hard to see both assets not being packaged perhaps and an overwhelming industry opinion.

I shared some insights from looking through a valmin valuation in this thread to show how Newcrest were looking to use the PFS and older MRE during Option Exercise to their advantage so why GGP's independent MRE assisted in pushing valuation up so it can be seen how an updated MRE and DFS can be crucial in determining an up to date value and why care being given into when\if released in accordance to any individual strategy IMO.

We've got a very very experienced team and BOD so I do trust they're making the best moves in a difficult period, not something I would have been confident of other junior explorers I have or am invested in.

The ASX listing delay puzzles me a bit though as why not set up the desired company structure and also start to attract some mandatory insto investment but preparation continues so I guess we'll be ready to execute quickly once deemed appropriate. I did watch one company dual list with an IPO recently and they managed to list within 6 weeks of publishing their prospectus so whether we cross or dual list with or without a raise it does seem a fairly straightforward process.

GGP need to know what Newmont are doing first CP - so a complex scenario for Shaun to decide on when/whether to release an MRE before year-end which personally leads me to believe no deal is being discussed currently with Newmont, I don't think he has clarity on what they are doing, just opinions like the rest of us. I do wonder if we see an MRE before year end unless Newmont take up the offer to peer review it, so it's more of a joint release based on the webinar responses.

I and no doubt others submitted questions asking where in the process the MRE is such as in Peer Review or submitted for JORC classification and whether NCM agreed to be involved in Peer Review. Donald asked for a more general update though and Shaun's response suggested to me that he'll wait until the Newmont takeover and then offer them an opportunity to peer review the MRE unless something happens or is happening that makes an earlier release before the takeover is completed make sense.

if they do agree on being involved in a peer review, perhaps he might assume they are planning in retaining Hav within a JV, if not then complete the MRE but perhaps hold until you know Newmont's decision on retaining or divesting Havieron (as it's the seller of their stake in Havieron that the MRE would benefit from by helping raise commercial value). Also, how they act when working on the DFS with GGP and what kind of schedule they seem to be looking at for release of it once in charge may give some clues on indication if they are just telling GGP they are reviewing all assets still...

IMO also, from what Shaun was saying in the webinar in response to my question on when he expects the DFS from Newmont, he said you'd expect the DFS to be in place for when the decline hits the top of the ore body which is due in Q2 2024 so that they've agreed the mine development plan and can start setting up stopes etc. So keeping an eye on decline completion also helps us identify a potential ETA for the DFS IMO and I assume if NEM intend to mine either in JV or as sole owners they'll release it by the time decline hits the ore body to keep everything on schedule.

Perhaps if intending to divest they'll still choose to release as it adds to the commercial value but then the DTM is also suppose to follow in short order, a DFS with good forecasts and outcomes pushes up the price tag so they can justify asking for more though and Shaun has also mentioned a DFS being released is required at a certain point in time. If they intend to buy our stake, perhaps they might hold off releasing... not sure, just trying to work out potential chess moves :-)

Of course the market in general won't like the open ended timelines for 1st half o0f 2024 but it's hard for Shaun to give timelines when certain events are in the hands of Newmont before GGP can react. For now, he's doing the right thing and preparing for all scenarios IMO.

Yes NEM do have JV's - (Page 38 as paginated and page 50 of the PDF)

https://s24.q4cdn.com/382246808/files/doc_financials/2022/ar/Newmont-2022-Annual-Report.pdf

@Bertie - I wouldn't look too much back at the Option Exercise to guide anything as it was a very odd valuation exercise using what Shaun (in his opinion vs NCM's of course) described as very prescriptive measures and a very conservative price deck and of course the data cut-off was 05 Dec 2021 from memory. FMV really didn't belong in eth description IMO having spent a lot of time bacjk then reading up on eht Valmin Code and different methodologies and approaches contained within.

Whether publicly published or not by the time any potential acquisition/divestment opportunity might present itself, there is an MRE currently being built by GGP that I think will be offered to NEM for Peer review from Shaun's webinar comments. A DFS would be expected to be published by the time the decline hits the top of the ore body too and we know there is also a draft in existence - these will help dictate a valuation range for Havieron in any negotiations I would have thought.

I doubt Newmont as a seller will ignore the opportunity to use all the drill data since late 2021 nor GGP if we find Newmont wanting to buy our 30%.

Some of the key highlights I picked up from studying a Valmin Report produced by SRK were as below and you can see why having an updated MRE or DFS would be important for the party selling their stake:

When only a Mineral Resource has been outlined and its economic viability remains to be established (i.e. there is no Ore Reserve), typically SRK employs a ’rule of thumb’ approach to resource valuation.

- Exploration Targets may be valued similarly to defined Mineral Resources but typically include a substantial discount to reflect the lower levels of confidence or lack of supporting data underpinning such estimates.

For poly-metallic projects containing more than one metal or commodity, such as Kharmagtai, it is common to adopt a metal transaction ratio (MTR) for valuation purposes.

- The MTR is the ratio of the transaction value (as implied by transactions involving comparable projects) to the gross dollar metal content (as implied by the contained metal held in Mineral Resources for the comparable project), expressed as a percentage.

- The MTR enables direct comparison of projects based on metal content and is used for valuation purposes only. It does not consider ultimate metal recoverability as required by JORC Code (2012) and hence caution should be used when assessing metal content for any other purpose.

Usual Yardstick Ranges:

⁃ Measured = 2% to 5% of Spot Price

⁃ Indicated = 1% to 2% of Spot Price

⁃ Inferred = 0.5% to 1% of Spot Price

⁃ Target = 0.1% to 0.5% of Spot Price

How the process has been communicated by GGP in the past is that once the Feasibility Study is completed the Final Investment Decision would be made quickly through the JVA Committee of 5 (3 NCM or now Newmont and 2 GGP) voting to decide on a Decision To Mine. If a DTM isn't approved by a unanimous vote, then the party who voted in favour will have the option to purchase the non-approving party's interest at Fair Market Value.

Well one point to consider is that if Newmont don't vote for a DTM they can't then argue a price tag as being a higher value in what would form a sensible FMV range based on latest MRE's and DFS conclusions as they're effectively saying that they consider the Havieron Telfer Project isn't worth pursuing and the other is that GGP have proven they are pretty adept at the FMV game.

Also, that then means that Telfer needs to be decommissioned as it's replacement ore for Telfer's rapidly dwindling supply just got cancelled. And lastly given Shaun's excitement at the potential and ability to fund owning 100% of Havieron this would be a desired outcome for him surely as in this scenario, Newmont aren't recognising the commercial viability of the project?... again hard to ask for a lot of money in that scenario :-)