GGPChat

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:41 pm**

This has been intriguing me…

Do NCM go for a growth update (6-8moz), do they try to provide a measured study with little “growth” on the last mre or a little of both?

I can’t help but feel we’ve upset the applecart and I’m interested to see how ncm play this.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:26 am**

Josh - Good question - If only we knew!

IMO, there are a couple of hi-level drivers that need to be considered here: incentive to NCM to increase the MRE quantities and the mechanics NCM employ to create an MRE.

Incentives (what drives the NCM management):

If NCM are going to take the 5%, do they feel that they will need an increased MRE to justify the 5% purchase to their shareholders?

An increased MRE will not necessarily lead to increased income in the short term as I believe the limiting factor will be the extraction rate of the ore.

If you can hold the MRE assets on the balance sheet with a value, does the management want to increase the balance sheet significantly or do they want to grow it over a number of years?

Does NCM management need to increase their long term forecasts for production or (again) do they want to predict low and hold back some in reserve just in case some of their other producing mines hit a snag or two. Big corporations like to under promise and then slightly over deliver, the markets do not want to see sudden movements up or down in forecasts as it suggests that the company is out of control.

Do they want to keep the value of Havieron low in order to keep our price low and keep their options open for a corporate event?

Then we need to move on to the mechanics and what increase might be possible::

What are the company principles and policies with regard to declaring reserves? Do they have to meet certain interval criteria? And does NCM have the necessary interval data (depth and width) to increase the MRE? I would like to think that this is a resounding yes.

What price for the commodities to be mined as this will significantly impact what is economic and what is uneconomic. We saw last year that NCM were very conservative with their PoG - will they be again?

Do we expect them to include any of the Havieron System that sits outside the South East Crescent

At the moment, I couldn't say whether the mechanics take precedence or the incentives - but, FWIW I would like to think that there would be a slight increase in the MRE given that they have significantly more assay results than they did previously and, if the MRE does not increase, this would also lead to a number of hostile questions from their shareholders - they must surely show some progress.

Not sure I've really answered your question, but hopefully given you a few things to think about when considering NCM's next call in the high stakes game of poker.

The subsequent question is whether SD would again issue a GGP MRE if he feels that NCM are underplaying with their MRE. I asked this question at the recent LSE event and it was a little difficult to get a definitive answer from SD - apart from that they would need to consider what was in the best interests fo the GGP shareholders.

ATB RA

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:20 am**

Thanks RA. I think we’re on the same wave length of pros and cons of the question. It’ll be interesting either way.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:43 am**

Rational Assessor - a good post, thank you.

For me one question to be answered is whether Newcrest will be cautious as to ounces in their next MRE update because of the data cut off point. The 12 October PFS drilling cut off date was February 2021, a full 8 months earlier. Now if we get another MRE update around NCM's results date (19 August) as anticipated will Newcrest also cut off at December 2021 just as Shaun did when he produced GGP's updated MRE in March? If that is the case then we may just see a broad re-iteration of the 6.5m oz Au equivalent at best.

I say "at best" because Newcrest have always been very conservative in their estimates, a point which has not gone unnoticed by both Shaun Day and Sprott for example.

This is shown in comparing the economic assumptions used by Newcrest and Greatland at the time of the October 2021 PFS:

GOLD PRICE $/oz - NCM 1,500; GGP 1,750; Current price 1,773

COPPER $/lb - NCM 3.30; GGP 4.08; Current price 3.51

Exchange rate AUD:USD - NCM 0.75; GGP 0.72; Current rate 0.69

This fed through to very big differences in key factors:

AISC $/oz - NCM 743; GGP 643

Capital - NCM $397m; GGP $381m (solely due to exchange rate variable used)

NPV - NCM $228m; GGP $508m

IRR - NCM 16%; GGP 27%

Payback period - NCM 4 years; GGP 3 years

Free cash flow - NCM $398m; GGP $764m

Although Newcrest's caution was well-founded regarding the copper price Newcrest's assumption for gold, which is where 80% of Havieron's value lies, is well below the current price.

However I do not see NCM diverting from their cautionary stance particularly as there have been significant inflationary pressures since the PFS date. They have all their other projects to value and they cannot be seen to follow Greatland's assumptions just to appease GGP. This is likely to mean NCM coming out with a higher AISC and higher capital costs for Havieron and therefore a lower Net Present Value compared to what Greatland would be advising for the same number of ounces. But more Probable ounces would be very welcome!

Hopefully we will see the updated MRE later this month. This, and the exercise of the 5% option, should be a definitive basis for Greatland to get funding in place (the absence of which are two reasons why the SP has not pushed forward as some had been predicting).

In this scenario I would not be surprised to see GGP issue another updated MRE in say January/February. We will see.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:13 pm**

Thanks LA.

Don't intend to get too much into the detail, however, I have a couple of challenges to your rationale.

You say that they may cut off at December 2021 and simply duplicate the GGP MRE. Has NCM not stated that they would be basing this MRE using a cut off of end Jun this year. From that, I am assuming that they would be using data from assayed drill holes that have been reported to the market up to that date - a significantly larger amount of drill data than was available last December.

You also suggest that they may modify both AISC and capital costs in order to maintain a low MRE. If they were to do that, then they may be leaving themselves to some criticism over the estimates for these components which they used for their initial MRE - which would, in turn, mean a reduction in confidence in their estimating methodology. That is, of course, unless they were to justify the changes by referring to the significant change in inflation figures as the reason for the changes in AISC and Capex.

As far as reissuing a GGP MRE....if SD feels that the NCM MRE is low, he may have some difficulty in securing additional funding without going for a raise and, may therfore think that the cost of a further MRE would definitely be justified in order to avoid the raise. If that is the case, I would anticipate that he would be looking to issue an updated GGP MRE within a pretty short timescale - ie September/October of this year.

ATB RA.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:49 pm**

Hi RA

I hope you are right that Newcrest honour their statement of using drill data up to June for the updated MRE. But once bitten and all that.......using 8 month old drilling data for the PFS left a bad taste and I would not put it past them to do it again.

I think it's worth just pausing on the detail for one moment, as the information I have provided are known facts from the 12 October RNS:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GGP/havieron- ... 66mf1.html

Armed with the same set of data - ore milled 2.1Mtpa; 9 year life of mine; 14 Mt ore mined LOM; average gold grade 3.72 g/t; average copper grade 0.54% and gold produced 1.432m oz for the starter mine - Newcrest and Greatland came up with a NPV valuation such that GGP's was 123% higher than Newcrest's ($508m v $228m). I would argue that Newcrest are ultra-conservative rather than Greatland being uber-bullish though GGP did over-estimate the copper price. So the likelihood is the true NPV lies more towards GGP's assumptions rather than Newcrest's but that is just my opinion.

Now this ultra-conservatism on Newcrest's part is important because if we do get another Newcrest MRE this month with an updated set of economic assumptions, including gold and copper prices stated and hopefully a higher MRE than Shaun's 3 March 6.5M oz Au equivalent RNS, it is this document that I assume Shaun will need to take to the banks for funding to prove the viability of Havieron. We know banks are also conservative but the growth in the asset should hopefully see GGP get all the funding they need.

"You also suggest that they may modify both AISC and capital costs in order to maintain a low MRE". I certainly had not wished to fully imply that though there will be slightly fewer ounces because of the lower copper price. As you will recall the formula used by Newcrest and Greatland at PFS stage was as follows: Gold equivalent = Gold (g/t) + 1.6xCopper (%).

In Shaun's updated MRE 3 March the formula had evolved slightly to Gold equiv = Gold (g/t) + 1.5xCu (%).

A small change but already a recognition by March that the copper price had changed. It has gone lower since of course.

So what I said was: "This is likely to mean NCM coming out with a higher AISC and higher capital costs for Havieron and therefore a lower Net Present Value compared to what Greatland would be advising for the same number of ounces".

I think it is quite clear that the AISC and capital costs this time will be higher than those used last year because of inflationary pressures and this in turn will lead to a lower NPV for the same number of ounces.

Of course we are indeed hoping the number of ounces has increased since March.

I think we are more or less on the same wavelength (I hope) and certainly want the same positive outcome.

Cheers l-a

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:48 pm**

In terms of the drilling data and cut off points for the MRE it would look very difficult for Newcrest to come in lower than GGP's 3 March 2022 6.5M oz gold equivalent I believe though it's quite possible that NCM will continue to have a strong leaning to inferred resources.

It's interesting to note that since the 3 February 2021 drill cut off contained in the last Newcrest MRE of 12 October 2021 a further 110,736m of drilling for 153 holes has taken place to date which could in theory be included in Newcrest's Friday update. That's as many holes as were included in the first MRE. Newcrest may disappoint of course which would not be a new phenomenon.

And since GGP's own updated MRE of 3 March 2022 a further 30,000m have been drilled for 40 holes.

This is the log of results since the initial inferred MRE of 10 December 2020:

1. 10/12/20 - Initial Inferred MRE based on 125 holes for 126,643m @26/10/20 cut off

2. RNS 10/12/20 drilled 128,559m for 134 holes

3. RNS 28/1/21 drilled 138,504m for 153 holes

4. RNS 11/3/21 drilled 154,953m for 179 holes

5. RNS 29/4/21 drilled 158,663m for 183 holes

6. RNS 10/6/21 drilled 164,420m for 190 holes

7. RNS 21/7/21 drilled 184,081m for 212 holes

8. RNS 9/9/21 drilled 194,456m for 230 holes

9. RNS 12/10/21 Updated MRE 3.6 M oz plus 166kt copper for 4.4M oz gold equivalent @ 3/2/21 drill cut off

10. RNS 28/10/21 drilled 210,629m for 254 holes

11. RNS 9/12/21 drilled 219,561m for 266 holes

12. RNS 28/1/22 drilled 226,492m for 272 holes

13. RNS 3/3/22 GGP's own updated MRE for 6.5M oz gold equivalent @ 9/12/21 drill cut off

14. RNS 10/3/22 drilled 237,290m for 281 holes

15. RNS 28/4/22 drilled 237,444m for 285 holes (excludes holes in progress, abandoned holes etc)

16. RNS 9/6/22 drilled 243,618m for 295 holes

17. RNS 21/7/22 drilled 249,240m for 306 holes

Posted: **Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:50 pm**

Hi LA and RA. Many thanks for your input and in depth analysis of the situation. I just find it difficult to understand why our JV partner would want to play down any part of Hav unless there is an ulterior motive that we are unaware of. ATB Speedy

Posted: **Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:35 pm**

Hi speedy. I would simply say that they have no need to be bullish. They just need to get a mining licence in quick time in order to feed Telfer.
Prior to the 5% determination, they clearly had an incentive to underplay and now they could still have an incentive.....if they do have eyes on a takeover.
As you will know, big corporations move very slowly and in a very controlled and focussed manner. They will use the above ground drills to complete the density of drilling required to get the data required for the first mine....but will also be getting data to determine which is the most efficient next target to prove up.
AIMHO. ATB RA.

Posted: **Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:37 pm**

RationalAssessor wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:35 pm Hi speedy. I would simply say that they have no need to be bullish. They just need to get a mining licence in quick time in order to feed Telfer.
Prior to the 5% determination, they clearly had an incentive to underplay and now they could still have an incentive.....if they do have eyes on a takeover.
As you will know, big corporations move very slowly and in a very controlled and focussed manner. They will use the above ground drills to complete the density of drilling required to get the data required for the first mine....but will also be getting data to determine which is the most efficient next target to prove up.
I guess that we do agree that there could still be another motive still for playing it down.
AIMHO. ATB RA.

Posted: **Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:56 pm**

Hi RA. As you no doubt are aware i have a deep mistrust of JPM (been hurt by them on a few occasions). JPM are a large share holder in Newcrest and probably supplying funding plus a shorter of GGP stock. I am not convinced that the shorting is for pure trading profit so in my opinion the shorting must be for another reason. Couple this with the down playing of Hav by Newcrest (insert your own thoughts). Good job we have an experienced BODs. ATB Speedy

Posted: **Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:49 pm**

I thought NCM would include all their results up to June 30th 2022 in their annual report (vis a vie their MRE(2) - no?
Z

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:05 am**

zoros wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:49 pm I thought NCM would include all their results up to June 30th 2022 in their annual report (vis a vie their MRE(2) - no?
Z

What constitutes “all their results”? Have you seen any confirmed date for drilling cut off? What drill cut offs have NCM previously used for Group Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves?

Also, just FYI and to avoid any previous confusion or misinformation, the NCM results are being issued tonight.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:54 pm**

JC - not sure what you are implying with that response?
The statement you posted in the attachment says it all. Results up to June 30th will be in tonights MR and OR report.
I'm also aware of when the news is out, I did the road map.

Incoming:
Annual report.
MR and OR report.
Possible NCM MRE(2).
Possible update on 5%?
GGP RNS.
GGP podcast

Z

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:32 pm**

zoros wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:54 pm JC - not sure what you are implying with that response?
The statement you posted in the attachment says it all. Results up to June 30th will be in tonights MR and OR report.
I'm also aware of when the news is out, I did the road map.

Incoming:
Annual report.
MR and OR report.
Possible NCM MRE(2).
Possible update on 5%?
GGP RNS.
GGP podcast

Z

I’m not implying anything, it’s quite clear what I asked.

Here is an example for you from NCM’s 2022 Diggers and Dealers presentation:

- PFS announced on 12th October 2021
- …Reserves extracted from the release…as at 31st December 2021 dated 17 February 2022

Was the above not from a drill cut off of February 2021 for Havieron?

I think people need to manage expectations. Brilliant if we have assays up to 30th June 2022, but I guess we will see this evening. Provided NCM proceed with their intention to issue an updated resource for Havieron, we all know how February went.

Separately regarding dates, the only reason I said that was because you sent an incorrect message on a different message board saying the results were out last night. Everyone makes mistakes

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:01 pm**

NCM have an air of more foe than friend. Maybe reputation counts for nothing and if they crap on us little guys then so be it.

Oh and I'll happily sell my lot for anything over 80p per share (It was £1, but I'm feeling a tad more desperate)

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:26 pm**

_J_C_ wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:32 pm
zoros wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:54 pm JC - not sure what you are implying with that response?
The statement you posted in the attachment says it all. Results up to June 30th will be in tonights MR and OR report.
I'm also aware of when the news is out, I did the road map.

Incoming:
Annual report.
MR and OR report.
Possible NCM MRE(2).
Possible update on 5%?
GGP RNS.
GGP podcast

Z
I’m not implying anything, it’s quite clear what I asked.

Here is an example for you from NCM’s 2022 Diggers and Dealers presentation:

2DD78356-6C07-4589-9C1A-619424E98A79.jpeg

- PFS announced on 12th October 2021
- …Reserves extracted from the release…as at 31st December 2021 dated 17 February 2022

Was the above not from a drill cut off of February 2021 for Havieron?

I think people need to manage expectations. Brilliant if we have assays up to 30th June 2022, but I guess we will see this evening. Provided NCM proceed with their intention to issue an updated resource for Havieron, we all know how February went.

Separately regarding dates, the only reason I said that was because you sent an incorrect message on a different message board saying the results were out last night. Everyone makes mistakes

JC at the first MRE issued around 9th December 2020 I believe the cut off was 20th October so a much shorter lead time compared to the PFS

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:52 pm**

I’m not expecting much different to Ggp results, I’ve looked at where they have been drilling and there haven’t been many drills that will increase the indicated reserves more than Ggp’s. I hope I’m wrong.
The inferred might go up but we are losing some of those into the Indicated.
If we get 6-8mozeq resource I will be happy

Ggp indicated reserves were 2.9moz so 3-4m would be good result

You have to step back and look at the length of drills that are happening now and from last December most are extremely long and take months to drill and then sent off for assay.
I’ve only witnessed a few targeting down the back of the Western front that you could call shortish.
Don’t expect drills from June it won’t happen

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:23 am**

Just dropping this in here as a reference for future. NCM drill cut off was 16th November 2021:

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:25 am**

I suppose we can consider that Newcrests decision not to take up the 5% has increased our perceived Havieron bit of the company value by 20% (from 25% to 30% of Havieron) from what we would otherwise have had, though our share of the mining cost increases. Also, any 'buyout' should, in theory (

), cost any suitor 20% more now. I often skip over all the other tenements, but some have reasonable, reachable, gold content. I wonder what all those other tenement assets of GGP should be valued at as a percentage of the company value?

GGPChat

Expectations from NCMs MRE

Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE

Re: Expectations from NCMs MRE