Member Info for Dip666

@CP - no one has that level of assurance about what is included in the JVA as covered a few times today.

However - Shaun has expressed no concern in Newmont taking over to date and seemed to welcome either working with them as JV partners or potential opportunities from optimisation plans they may embark on.

You can either choose to take that as enough to assuage concerns or not as you see fit but you seem to be having a pointless argument as even if one claims to have heard something from Shaun at a Town Hall, are you really going to give it much credence ?

I doubt it TBH.

@CP - I think this has been covered in interviews so again check them from the one from 07 Feb with Callum near the end by searching for references to Newmont perhaps. Best to confirm for yourself than smeone preaching at you is my thought process.

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=54

@CP - I am fairly certain Shaun has confirmed a few things around this such as Newmont taking onboard the JVA terms and responsibilities on taking over NCM and it doesn't initiate a sale or purchase opportunity by default either.

Look through the interviews starting from the one with Callum on 07 Feb 2023 towards the end and responses from Callum and then Shaun in following interviews . Am sure I or others have posted excerpts in threads here since Feb too around these topics.

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=54

Fair enough CP but one feasible theory for using 'may' vs 'intended' is that potentially our JV partner might be Newmont by year end - and to date they've not committed to their plans for Havieron in any public statements.

So perhaps playing safe vs the JVA having been interpreted of late and GGP deciding things are less clear.

Much like Shaun has stated that he won't use 'fully funded' to describe GGP's funding for Havieron as although the funds arranged have been for an expected 3mtpa production profile in DFS vs stated 2mtpa in PFS until the DFS is published, he legally can't claim we're fully funded.

Didn't mean to annoy you :-)

I was answering you in regards to less optimal parts - keep up CP! :-)

And I'm making the point very clearly that it's rare to have a contract in place where something has only good points for one party unless GGP were managed by absolute morons at the time or desperate beyond belief.. and I doubt that is the case with the JVA.

You're free to make your own interpretation of changed wording from' intended' to 'may' but the fact remains we really have very little knowledge of the JVA. It might be that GGP is exploring options to process the ore itself so changed the wording or a host of other reasons such as a poor choice of words as RNS's often seem to contain which confuse investors.

I said there MAY be and it is common sense after all CP?

I owned a company and negotiated the contracts with both clients and suppliers and still do working for myself, I'd love to say I only ever negotiated contracts that were 100% to my benefit but of course not, that would be a ridiculous assertion.

I always focused on good outcomes for the company but with clients you always need to make allowances for the other party too and show them the value add to make it worth working with you and with suppliers, you want suppliers happy with a deal and working hard to secure future work for a client that brings in a nice revenue stream for them.

Common sense.

We really don't know what is more or less prescriptive in the JVA based on just interpretation for most part from Gervaise or Shaun's statements from interviews etc. If you mean that the actual intention of Hav ore being processed at Telfer or not... well there may be some prerequisites from each party in JVA around that much like the DTM being made via the committee but we've never been informed of any such specifics. I'm sure that NCM and GGP have in place a very professional JVA however vs something open to loose interpretation.

TBF Shaun's been very good about sharing what he can in many instances for more confidential matters. When some here were looking at the 5% Option Exercise perhaps correlating to a large price tag he made clear in interviews that there were prescriptive measures such as very conservative price decks and an outline of process to help us understand we were probably looking at a more conservative outcome.

@CP what do you mean by the statement below:

"PS I am a little disappointed that the original JV is on my reading of what has been said, somewhat lacking from a GGP perspective. I would have expected Telfer to have been wrapped up in it."

All we know of the detail in JVA is so so little that most of our opinions are heavy conjecture... including journalists etc.

What's been said in past is that there are SOME elements that are less optimal and Shaun said NCM also might be open to renegotiating too if we hit at Scally or JURI then look at using that event to perhaps rework things if processing at Telfer.

A good deal is usually one where neither party gets everything they want and years into discovery and analysis of Havieron perhaps both parties see better alternatives with hindsight. Some aspects like the 10% toll processing seems great for GGP too remember? We'll never have the full details of the JVA's for any project so always be a lot of conjecture and speculation from any interviews etc.

One fact is for sure, we now have a much larger and experienced team in place structuring new deals such as the Rio farm-in moving forward.

@CP - Looking at the longer term and much bigger picture I think the proposed restructuring and ASX listing is more than just focusing on immediate concerns such as consolidation, potential fundraise and short term impact on the SP by mandated buying and increasing Insto ownership.

Alongside GGP having OZ assets , an Oz based staff and Oz management, Wyloo and our BOD all have a lot of influence and pull in Oz. This proposed ASX listing enables access to other Oz based opportunities and increased funding ability for future M&A too in the years ahead, perhaps Shaun will articulate this at a Town Hall, but seems fairly obvious to me.

The wider corporate game right now is between NCM/NEM and NOT the Havieron Project, so we have to be patient as it unfolds this year.

Most likely outcome I am sure many would agree is that the deal goes ahead and we end up with Newmont as a majority partner into 2024.

What Newmont do AFTER the deal goes through in relation to Havieron is where we will make our own moves dependent on whether:

1/ They continue JV,

2/ they divest Hav and/or /Telfer

3/ or try and buy our stake in Hav

That is going to be our main battlefield.

Being listed on ASX by 2024 with an Australian TopCo is probably going to be beneficial in particular for the latter two options outside the stated aims of increasing Institutional holders and increasing demand for the shares.

Some suggesting NEM will mothball Telfer and Hav, but this also accrues costs and surely the Oz Govt. will be concerned about plans for OZ assets during this period when deciding to approve the deal as will other Governments for the other assets. Seems to me it makes better fiscal sense to just offload to more than willing buyers if they don't want the two assets.

That's my 'steely eyed' take on things in the big ocean of possibilities :-)

Correction *30% owners of Havieron (not GGP!)

Sadly I agree TT - some here refuse to look at the entire chessboard and instead through the prism of being a GGP shareholder alone... problem is we're a pawn on the chessboard at the minute of a much bigger game and we are just passengers. We're 30% owners of GGP and NCM or NEM in future will always control the narrative unless we end up as sole owners.

The way Gervaise seems to have set the table in hindsight was for Newcrest to use the Option Exercise as a Price Discovery Event to pick up the company at an attractive price.... for THEM. So he knew it was better to exit given what little we came to know of things such as very conservative price decks. Shaun's expressed that the Hav JVA lead by Gervaise has a few aspects that aren't the most optimal for us and would love to renegotiate if another discovery nearby opens up the opportunity.

Our BOD has to look at everything and try and plan a few moves ahead which is why they've had to wait to see if NCM update assets while working in the background on implementing drill data as it comes in on a working model. This will now be released in Q4 as confirmed in the Proactive interview. Newcrest shareholders (the major shareholders that have influence) obviously didn't care about an update as much like Newmont major shareholders (many of whom own stakes in both companies) have already agreed to a deal in principle behind closed doors.

As shareholders we'll never have the full picture on many things, anyone who has experience in investing knows this is one of the risks. What some of you are asking for again is just plain unrealistic when it comes to Havieron, we're minority owners and the direction will always be controlled by Newcrest and then Newmont in future vs the many benefits the relationship offers in sharing risk and burden of costs with owning a mining asset.

@tig I understand what you're saying and agree in that we should be recieving material and regular updates but do feel as stated that GGP is doing its best to balance that with trying to maintain a relationship with Newcrest at present and hopefully matters improve with Newmont in charge.

The MRE by itself isn't going to convince the general market to pick up our shares en masse I feel and improve SP marginally, hopefully mandatory buying on ASX listing does but ideally we need the DFS/DTM which to a certain extent is out of our control although Shaun has said there is limit to how long it can be withheld

We are to some extent hostage to external forces at moment and limited in response, it is what it is for now.

@toffers, I think the stated plan from Shaun is to utilise for an ASX listing from his statements to date but surely that can't be your main deciding factor on the listing, don't forget many of these institutions have experts to evaluate GGP and its assets and we have a great team with ability to get the detail across but hey, your choice if that will be your primary decision maker ;-)

I asked if you personally understood MREs and the process... not if you can paste links into a post?! I'm not aware of any common occurrence of juniors on jvs as the minority partner releasing independent MREs and well now we will have done twice l,which might be seen as a misaligned partnership frankly - so not great we've had to go down this route but we do need to do so now I feel too, unfortunate though.

My point is some here have what might be deemed as unrealistic expectations based on the reality of our situation, as in being a minority partner and against the agreed JVA we seem to have transparency of.

@Toffers - glad you feel better, not to be rude but you seem to like sharing long posts without taking in the information people are replying with, I've explained in some detail why I think the MRE is 'in progress' but not completed and why the Q4 timeframe is realistic.

- Are you not understanding that in order to include all results up to June it needs more time? You need to read up on the JORC process and also the complexity of an MRE, it's a very complex piece of work with many assumptions made that need to be justified in some detail to achieve JORC compliancy. Havieron is also quite a complex ore body with distinct zonations it seems. Including data up to June is worth the wait as it will help make it bigger.

- It helps to understand something to then make an opinion of whether something should have been completed already. Read the last GGP MRE for instance and go and search "MRE' on GGPChat and read the threads to help you understand the document and how they are created.

- Ideally in order to avoid partnership issues in the JV we still in theory will be operating Havieron within, Newcrest need to be offered the chance to peer review, now it isn't great Shaun probably had little notice but GGP wanted to include June results so work was ongoing anyway, and they've been waiting to see if they need to publish their own while they beaver away by seeing what was included in NCM FY Financial results on Thursday.

- Now they know they do, they'll start the process of peer reviews as soon as they have completed their analysis, conclusions and calculations, perhaps they have recently and can commence immediately but does seem from Shaun's interview they are still finalising the document.

- Once peer reviews which probably entail making alterations on feedback are completed, it will also take time to submit and have the final version approved.

Now based on the above, let em ask you:-

- Why do you think he should have already had a JORC approved MRE update ready to publish on Friday morning if the plan is to include all data from recent drilling to enable as large an MRE as possible?

If you and Tig are thinking we should get ongoing MRE's as we want, well one of the disadvantages of being the minority partner in a JV with a major is they hold more control and doing so is complex while trying to keep partnership cordial. GGP has a delicate balancing act at present.

Pro's and con's to a JV, we can't have just the good stuff unfortunately.

Lol Ben ure right about the by-elections, Newmont for sure have some measure of control on Newcrest now we're so close to their taking over, Newcrest lot look focused on closing deal now and handing over the keys Vs any forward thinking beyond that to me and no doubt most of them close to working out their next career move already, these are seasoned high level corporate sharks :-)

@Ynaw91, I posted my opinion on where I think GGP are with MRE process around 6pm yesterday mate and why I think they'll need some time to complete based on Shaun's comments in Proactive interview. Reasonable timeline for Q4 given they've probably been implementing June data, analysing and building conclusions to have it ready for peer reviews and the submission process IMO.

It's worth looking through the JORC process, reading our last MRE and learning how they are built (good threads on GGPCHAT) to get an understanding of the scope of work involved in them. If the data cutoff was March, surely they would have still waited as GGP intend to invite Newcrest to peer review now it's been confirmed they aren't updating.

No idea on when they informed GGP but GGP have been working on MRE in meantime as data becomes available but I suspect it wasn't a large window. Does anyone really think they haven't been keeping an updated model since the last MRE and no doubt probably we have our own DFS draft being updated too just in case we become sole owners...

Hi Ben, I expect the team to create an independent MRE that would closely align with any future update Newcrest or Newmont might make just as the last one GGP created hence Newcrest will be invited to peer review.

We've still got to play the game as presenting ourselves as good partners for Newmont in future as at this juncture we don't know if they plan to divest or try buying our share, so on the surface we just act as if we will be working hand in hand as partners on Havieron.

It wasn't just Havieron that wasn't updated, their overall corporate strategy seems to have driven this decision Vs them just focusing on one of many spinning plates. One good theory from some is that Newmont want to present updates as new owners to appease any disgruntled shareholders after taking over. And you can completely understand why they would want to be the ones releasing a DFS and involved in DTM IMO.

IMO there is a clear timetable for when the SP should rerate and that's probably with DFS\DTM to hand leading into production in 2024 which vastly increases our fundamental value and then the hope is for the demand for our shares increasing it helps the SP reflect this value as in Lassonde Curve example. Without macro tailwinds I have more reserved expectations at the minute for what that level of recovery may be short term.

ASX listing in theory too beforehand of course but I await the details and confirmation around this to try to anticipate what effect it may have. I don't think Shaun would put anything around it that is highly dilutive as wouldn't go down very well at this price point and personally not convinced he has some big deal to unveil around it either, hopefully I am wrong but seems wishful thinking to me as not seen anyone present a well thought out argument for this being very likely, no offence to anyone convinced otherwise :-)

The team has enough to do with getting an independent MRE out now and getting the listing completed in run up to xMas. Many of us held through and/or invested during the Orphan Period and personally I won't be doing that in future with any similar investment I can tell you. But fortunately we're not too far off now from production in mining terms. I've really tried to remove any emotion out of this now and focus equally as much on the management and strategy as the asset. They really go hand in hand in this sector, never get too infatuated or invested in just one aspect I guess.

My biggest learning point has been exactly that many of us focused too much on the asset and never picked up on the issues Shaun was dealing with around the time of option exercise left by Heddle etc. who very clearly had planned an exit by using the option exercise as a price discovery event for a buyout IMO. That sly old dog :-)

But with an asset like Havieron and a strong grip now of our share of it and given enough time I think we will be fine once we clear these last few hurdles (challenging ones) even for those who higher averages but it may take time. Many lessons learnt for many of us by perhaps getting too emotionally invested and narrow in our focus but fortunately we picked a great asset with a phenomenal team building around it, so the show is far from over :-))

Hi 5x5, they for sure will have been keeping an updated model since the last MRE with every set of drill results so hopefully not too long , wish I had time earlier to create and then read the transcript earlier as makes a bit more sense now on timeframe for updated MRE as initially wondering why not just sumbit for peer review ASAP.

They need to also draw the final conclusions and justification for their calculations once entire data set analysed, add Peer reviews and submission and review for JORC classification and it must take a few week, so I think that Q4 is a realistic timeline and we know all about realistic timelines from our other shared stock lol

In the interview today he stated they're working on one and need more time as they are incorporating the latest drill results up to June, had the data cut-off been March no doubt they could have sent straight off for peer review now that it's confirmed NCM didn't plan to update ANY of their assets in their FY Financial results.

BUT it appears that still some work to do and of course the more drill data that is included will enable a larger update.

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=765

Excerpt:

* What can we expect to be in that updated resource?

- It will reflect the 80,000m drilled, people should understand that does take a lot of time to incorporate that and remember that program was only completed in June

- Although that 80,000 additional metres constitutes about 35% increase in the drilling at Havieron, one shouldn’t necessarily expect a direct correlation between the metres drilled and that advancement

- For a couple of reasons it’s never directly correlated but also remember a lot of this drilling is deeper so a lot more of those metres has just been getting down to the ore body

- Albeit in a positive sense I think when you reflect on the drilling we’ve undertaken and the intercepts that’s produced over the last 12, even 18 months I think there should also be some sense of optimism as well

- We think it will be a good update and we’ll share that once that work is done and we understand that in a more thorough way.