GGPChat

Shaun in his last interview stated the Decline is just about to exit the middle aquifer. That is the middle sandstone 25m thick.
The next layer is siltstone 35m thick this is slightly harder and better for the drill and blast development
The hardness dictates how far in they can drill and blast before there is any danger of the roof falling in.
Looks like that middle aquifer they were doing just under 3m per day, this next layer may increase to 4-5m.
The Lower Tillite /aquifer 95m thick is a very strong strata this will mean they can go further with the drilling and blasting maybe 8+m per day it will accelerate .
There is a formula they use I think it’s to do with the height in that they can’t drill and blast more than the max height, so that’s 6.5m.
I would say that is a minimum to expect and more if they can advance that in one shift, so I would expect one and a half advances per day

Thanks for the info, Bamps

This is the last reported position of the Decline as at 19th April 2023 which was 1600m advance of the main Decline. Also 425m of additional works making 2025m.
As at 17th June that’s 59 days of advance.
Now assuming it’s all been in the middle aquifer which was in poor ground conditions an advance of 2.5m per day = 147.5m.
Shaun said in the last interview it had gone through this aquifer so hopefully it will speed up a bit, the ground is still not strong so hopefully will get to 3-4m per day until it reaches the strong Tillite @ 315m vertical depth.
315m vertical depth = 2,220m Decline length.

Hi RationalAssessor,

I don't know if you were at the town hall meeting on 21 September 2023 but regret to report that Shaun said they manage the speed of rate of decline and are not going to finish by January 2024. However, Shaun also said quicker progress would be made blasting through the upcoming 'harder rock' and the decline would be completed ahead of target (but he did not state when that would be or what the target is). Hmm could all change again the next time there is feedback on the decline progress!

Hi Mremc2

Nope, not at the town hall but did read all the reports from the various attendees so am aware that SD is predicting completion of the decline in the Jun quarter - ie Apr to Jun.
You'll have seen my regular reports on the sticky thread area of the reference library. The last of which had a prediction of around 14 March for completion. But that was based upon 5M per day and a total length of decline and ancillaries of 3694. Rate of progress for the three weeks prior to 1 Sep was 4.5M per day.
Here's the business end of the graph which shows that 14 Mar date. I can only therefore assume that one of the three variables which are being used may be slightly wrong:
Total length 3694M
Progress Rate of 5M per day
SD is managing expectations and maybe looking to improve on the Jun quarter.

It never was an exact science. But the cone of uncertainty is certainly narrowing and we should all be expecting the work to be complete between Jan and Jun.

Thanks and ATB.
RA

Hi RA - think you might have meant April to June as in 2024 Q2?

Also as you say I expect Shaun is being conservative but looking to improve on this and perhaps some insight in his response below in Town Hall in regards to the work with the Decline, perhaps they're adding more passing and stockpile bays to ensure as much increase in DFS as possible as part of the optimisations...

* Alan and others I've asked us to ask you about the feasibility study give us a broad outline of what will be included in the feasibility study
- look If you have a look back to the pre feasibility study we that was finalized around a 2 million and in that we talked about the preferred model moving forward ton run rate is around a 3 million ton run rate (annually)
- that would be my expectation it will be certainly north of 2 million tons and centred around a 3 million ton per annum run rate and a lot of the work around the decline is centred around creating the overtaking bays, the stockpile bays to allow a the modelling to deliver something around that 3 million ton, so when you see the overall meters developed and then you see the actual vertical distance covered the Delta there or the reason there's so much more meters developed is we are making so many overtaking bays, so many opportunities for passing Bays which allows for a more productive decline, so that's been really important part of the mine planning and then looking at optimizations around that as well

Hi RA, Thanks. I have lost my long reply to you (including what Bamps stated on LSE 22 Sep 2023 09:29) and I am not going to retype it but essentially I am confused about the target for the chart is it 1. level with the ore body, 2. touching/ digging the ore 3. 'completing' the decline April to June 2024 unclarified exact meaning? ATB Emc

As I understand it the permits obtained so far only get us to the top of the ore body.

Hi Emc

When I first started the graph, I simply calculated the decline length as 2800M (ie 400M vertical at a decline of 1 in 7)
It then became evident that the regular reports were including ancillary cuts such as passing bays and any necessary side cuts. I think it was Bamps who put me onto the para in the PFS which explained how many total metres would be required. You'll see that the calculation includes both the decline plus ancillaries but not the vertical development (that exclusion may be right or it may be wrong)

Short answer to your question is that the target od the chart gets us to the level of the top of the orebody - at which point, I believe NCM would required further permissions to then develop further.

Hope that all makes some form of sense.

ATB RA

I asked Shaun in the main room about the Decline progress not reaching the Ore till June.
He said it was all the infrastructure to make sure 3m ton would come out through the Decline.
I mentioned to Shaun that the average had been around 5.17m and should be at the ore by January. He started replying then Donald rudely interrupted and went on to something else.
I had him about that later
The PFS dimensions are not correct now if Ggp new mine plan is to be believed. The vents that were in the PFS now look to be later.
There is only one vent drive now parallel with the Decline instead of 5.
I really can’t see where all the extra work is to take it to June, the only thing I can think of is he means to the first production level but that maybe wishful thinking.
Something sounds not right

Everything in red is above the ore, in green is below the top of the ore

Hi Bamps, his reply in webinar to what to expect in the DFS made it seem to me as if additional stockpile and passing bays may have been incorporated as part of the optimisation plans to ensure that the circa 3mtpa production profile expected in the DFS is attained?

* Alan and others I've asked us to ask you about the feasibility study give us a broad outline of what will be included in the feasibility study
- look If you have a look back to the pre feasibility study we that was finalized around a 2 million and in that we talked about the preferred model moving forward ton run rate is around a 3 million ton run rate (annually)
- that would be my expectation it will be certainly north of 2 million tons and centred around a 3 million ton per annum run rate and a lot of the work around the decline is centred around creating the overtaking bays, the stockpile bays to allow a the modelling to deliver something around that 3 million ton, so when you see the overall meters developed and then you see the actual vertical distance covered the Delta there or the reason there's so much more meters developed is we are making so many overtaking bays, so many opportunities for passing Bays which allows for a more productive decline, so that's been really important part of the mine planning and then looking at optimizations around that as well

Hi Dip
He said that to me too but that can’t be the reason.
Look back at my post of the original design
6 vertical shafts less, 5 vent drives less
The stockpiles that were on these vent drive’s could be added to the new Decline so no extra works there.
The only extra is overtaking bays I can’t see that taking it to June

What's the likelihood that they're just slowing down development of the decline a bit so that they don't complete to the top of the orebody before getting the decision to mine.

Slow the development of the decline, cut back on the more expensive overtime shifts (if there are any), time the completion of the decline to the top orebody with the DTM and enable the tunnellers to continue blasting as they move on to the mining/stopes section.

If they finish too soon they might leave site and then within a relatively short period of time GGP/NMT or NMT as JV manager will need to recruit a new tunnelling team.

Hi Spondy
I think you’re looking too deeply at the situation.
Shaun went to great lengths to tell us about the aquifer to say there’s not a lot of water in it and the decline advance rate should increase within it.
The tunnel contract is now till June as far as I know.
I’ve always thought it would take around 6 months to get from the top of the ore to the first production level.
Now take a good look where that new design in green is heading, yes to the first production level.
Shaun said however it was top of ore 6-9 months so that April - June.
I wasn’t allowed to complete my questioning about the Decline.

The tunnelling contract will have an early completion clause/ settlement and also a late completion clause/ penalty

Good evening all

I was just chatting to Bamps on WhatsApp and see you were discussing decline progress and dates for hitting top of ore body. There is an interview that Liam did with Shaun on AIM ON AIR dated 27 April 2023 which is self explanatory. Transcript below:

"BR. Fantastic. It only seems like a few weeks ago that we were sat in the studio and talking about Q4 and as I said in my pre-show notes that I didn't think really much was going to happen but we've quite a lot of stuff to get through today. First let's touch on the latest updates from Havieron and talk about the news that was released on RNS this morning. First of all how is the decline development going?

SD. Yeah look, really well. We're over 1,600 metres of the main ramp development down to the ore body and total development has also gone through 2,000 metres that includes all the additional ancillary developments such as overtaking bays and stockpile, but what I think is most insightful about this is the acceleration of the progress, another record quarter, and as you continue to accelerate we get down to the bottom* of that ore body. Still scheduled for March 2024 but we are running ahead of schedule. We haven't changed the scheduled date officially but it's nice to have that additional flexibility up our sleeve and if we can deliver it early that would be great but no development is linear. But it's nice to be ahead of time and again just continuing to see that acceleration as we go through and get into more and more compliant ground".

*Shaun clearly means top of ore body

https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=712

Bamps21 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 6:17 pm Hi Dip
He said that to me too but that can’t be the reason.
Look back at my post of the original design
6 vertical shafts less, 5 vent drives less
The stockpiles that were on these vent drive’s could be added to the new Decline so no extra works there.
The only extra is overtaking bays I can’t see that taking it to June

Hi Bamps, ah I see what you mean, perhaps he is being conservative with timings but still see's March as feasible.. I think you should speak to Liam to perhaps submit the question to find out what Shaun was going to say to you before being cut off for the next quarterly interview in October Liam should be doing

Exploration Decline from the graphics.
That’s all the Decline shown in green .
This goes below the top of the ore to production infrastructure.
They currently don’t have permissions to go below the top of the ore but submissions have been given to the government department plus another revision for approval, so hopefully will come in time.

Looks like water damage to the box cut slopes