In the original Havieron JV (12/3/19), there was no reference to how the 5% would be determined but it was just described as being available at Fair Market Value as long as NCM initiated the process within 12 months of the completion of stage 4 which was the production of a feasibility study for a project.
In the RNS which introduced the Juri JV and the NCM funding (30/11/21), some changes were made to the Hav JV. The PFS was pushed to stage 4, the methodology for price determination was described as follows:
"Newcrest retains its option to acquire an additional 5% interest at fair market value (cumulative interests 75% Newcrest; 25% Greatland). Fair market value will be determined by negotiation between the parties, or, if the parties are unable to agree, then by an independent valuer."
It's not completely evident what happened to NCM's obligation to deliver a Feasibility Study as a result of this RNS, however, susbesquently, NCM has now claimed the 70% which was available at completion of stage 4.
My understanding following this RNS was that there could be three valuations, GGP, NCM and if negotiation was not successful, a further valuation by an "Independent valuer"
Then on 9 December 21, completion of stage 4 was declared with NCM being entitled to 70% of the Hav JV.
FInally, on 21 December 21 the RNS issued declared that NCM had served notice on GGP that they wished to initiate the 5% process. Within the RNS, the process was described as follows:
Newcrest has issued a notice to Greatland informing it that Newcrest would like to begin the process under the joint venture agreement to seek to agree the option exercise price in the period to mid-February 2022.
Under the joint venture agreement, if the option exercise price cannot be agreed by this date, each party is thereafter required to notify the other of its assessment of fair market value. If both parties' assessments are within 10% of each other, the option exercise price will be the average of those assessments. If both parties' assessments are not within 10% of each other, the parties will proceed to independent expert determination, with the expert being required to determine which of the values nominated by the parties is to be the fair market value.
This appeared to change the process from that previously described in that an "independent expert" would be used and he/she would simply choose whether the NCM or GGP valuation would be the FMV. The independent expert would not necessarily have to produce a third valuation.
As a result of this change, Dip contacted the company at the end of December with the following question
Hi,
could you please clarify my understanding of the process?
1) Newcrest want to agree the option exercise price by mid feb 2022,
2) If Newcrest/GGP do not mutually agree on a Fair Market Value by this date then both parties put forward their own valuations
3) If both valuations are within 10% of each other, then the average will be considered the valuation for Newcrest to exercise their 5% option.
4) If there is a greater than 10% disparity, an independent expert is brought in to choose which one of the estimates is fair market value, so I assume that is the price that needs to be paid by Newcrest.
5) Newcrest then has 30 business days to exercise its option to acquire the additional 5%.
6) Should they choose to go ahead, then proceeds from the exercise will be used to repay the outstanding balance of the existing loan we have from Newcrest.
The response from GGP was as follows:
Hi Dip,
Thank you for your email.
Your summary of the 5% option exercise, fair market valuation process and timeline is accurate. It’s worth noting that these parameters are subject to change based on mutual agreement between the parties.
Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Thank you for your support of Greatland Gold.
Subsequently a further PI has contacted GGP and been advised:
"that an independent valuer has been appointed to review each parties submissions before making any price determination."
From all the evidence above, my view is that the process to be followed is that the independent expert/valuer will be charged with selecting either one or the other valuations presented by NCM and GGP.
That is of course, if NCM and GGP have not resolved the valuation at the eleventh hour before the expert/valuer makes his/her decision.

Happy to be challenged or hear other views.
ATB RA