Good News & Bad News, page-28677

If it were a contract with penalties for default or non-performance by the mine (as in “sorry don’t want further mining done now so not paying you further under this contract - but you will get the early termination/penalty provisions paid out”, then that’s just a commercial decision about offered rate and negotiation on penalties. I can’t see a mining contractor just saying “nope, you might end the contract early and we are not interested in doubling our productivity in the meantime”.

Alternatively, maybe the “contract” offered to your mate had a sunset clause which allowed it to be terminated by a party at will without fee or penalty provisions(???). If that’s the sort of deal being offered to mining contractors I guess there’s significant risk in investing in mining company stocks (and/or significant interest premiums being assigned by their financiers). If word of any such non-acceptance of such a mining extension came out (guess it may not take much to join the dots on whose involved based on what you have said here)l then I daresay it that could have an effect on how that mining contractor goes about sourcing expansions and/or financing for operations. Of course I have absolutely no knowledge at all of what happened in the situation you described. I’m just trying to consider the range of possible implications of such “news”.

But equally, I’m not sure that any contractor would accept such terms … which may mean that the offered contract was offered in that form more because it maybe wasn’t a genuine wish to engage in that contract by the mine owners - and is just the start of the usual negation shenanigans that happen behind the scenes. Guess we’ll find out when info of a contract extension or info of a new mining contractor comes out later.