The Telfer Dscovery - Arbitration

In placing the routine of laboratory chemical analysis over the importance of Turcaud's solitary effort of exploration and discovery in that remote region, ..in denying his priority to discovery of the gold-bearing mineralised outcrops, ..in holding concealment of the gold content of those outcrops a 'fortune-with-virtue', ..in giving Thomson official credit as the discoverer of the gold in outcrop over Day Dawn geologist Phillipe Koehn, ..in Searls' gratuitiously liberal use of the word 'honest' to describe the quality of Newmont staff, ..in the spin he puts on the word 'discovery', and in the many contradictions of the different players in this story, .... in all of these things is revealed Newmont's attempt to put as much distance between Turcaud's intrepid pioneering discovery and their own staked ownership of the deposit.  By calling themselves 'discoverers' of the orebody (rather than "uncoverers and further revealers"),  and attempting to simultaneously set aside Turcaud's role simply as "valiant and frustrating prospecting" and so appropriate discovery for themselves, is revealed a condition which is very closely tantamount to theft in the eyes of the Biblical Commandment  "do as you would be done by". ________________________
And thus we are returned to considering the question of value of that discovery in proportion to the thing discovered.  So, ..what of the intrinsic monetary value of Turcaud's discovery when set against Newmont's ownership?   Since law turns on precedent, precedent  would seem to be a reasonable test.

In April 1972  and according to the recollection of Day Dawn's Managing Director, Ian Cornelius, Newmont paid Day Dawn $150,000 for information leading to the discovery of the Telfer ore deposit.  That was no small sum in 1972, given that money halves its value every six to eight years.  The figure does not accord with Newmont's statement of $15,000.  However an indication of which is more likely to be at the correct end of the scale may be revealed in the short, sceptical laugh with which Cornelius responds to Adcock's citation of Newmont's figure in the audio-taped ABC interview, an interjection very clear on the tape and arresting enough to be recorded in the transcript.  Turcaud has reason to believe from the enquiries of Mr. T.D. Evans, Attorney General of Western Australia at the time, that the sum paid was very substantially larger.

Nothing in the way of emoluments is revealed towards Thomson, the official discoverer of Telfer, other than an official letter of recognition and then retrenchment after six months of contract.  Thomson is "known for hanging up on anyone who wishes to discuss the Telfer story." (Adcock, 1999).  Despite being the official discoverer, first as an employee for Day Dawn and second as employee for Newmont, Thomson clearly did not qualify as one of Searls' 'unleashed talented runners'.

David.Tyrwhitt who staked the claims however, did.  Emoluments received by Tyrwhitt are nowhere stated, but may be reasonably expected to be commensurate with Searls' depiction of him as an honest and talented man who "knew how to run" (Tyrwhitt, 1995).  Remuneration would also have accrued to him through promotions to Exploration Director and later CEO, and later to a consulting career established on his reputation (falsely) as the discoverer of Telfer.  (rather "..responsible for the discovery"..)

The amount paid by Newmont in 1987 to sharebrokers Potter Partners Underwriting  in lieu of commissions for the issuing of shares for the float for its new flagship, Newcrest Mining Limited  (5% of the value of the shares sought) amounted to $15,750,000   A tidy sum (in 1987).  One wonders if the same result might not have been achieved more cheaply, and if an element of 'mollification' might have been included.  Sheppard (2002) details the wrangle some years earlier between the Board of Boral/ Narla and Newmont over claims by Boral that Newmont was attempting to exclude Narla from its entitlement to participation in the Telfer project under the joint venture agreement, a dispute which was ongoing at the time of the float.  In his book, Desert Gold,  Tyrwhitt (1995) makes no mention whatsoever of Newmont's Joint Venture Partner, Narla Minerals N.L., or its parent company, Boral.  It seems that Narla's shareholders, like those of Day Dawn before it, were denied the opportunity to participate in one of the richest goldmines in the world.   Sheppard writes:-

"Both companies had faded into financial oblivion and the ex-shareholders were probably totally unaware of their connection to the Telfer Goldmine as they read of the corporate triumphs in the business sections of their daily papers."

Here ends the role call of direct emoluments that can be reasonably established.  However in regard to the question of arbitration it is relevant  to list some others who played a key part in the discovery of the gold.

First amongst these is Phillipe Koehn, the Day Dawn geologist who made their first excursion out to the Paterson Range some months after Turcaud's visit and who was apparently the first to actually recognise gold from samples gathered in the field.  Koehn received no recognition for his perspicacity.  Koehn is philosophical about his exclusion from the credits of discovery but has the peace of mind of knowing that he acted honourably when later, under duress from Tyrwhitt, he was asked to reveal important field data pertaining to his sampling -  and being able to prove it to anyone interested to know.

Mention too must go to Berven and Schiller, the consultants whom Turcaud first visited on his return to Perth, who, he believed,  would represent his prospect fairly to other companies, and who directed him to Day Dawn Minerals, one of the first companies to whom Turcaud showed his samples.   Berven and Schiller admired and assayed Turcaud's samples (but not for gold) but expressed no overt interest in the prospect because of commitments elsewhere in exploration for nickel.

One cannot help but notice in the above list that payments did not go to those most directly connected with the discovery of the gold, but rather to those who contributed to establishing Newmont's distance from it.

Credits cannot be concluded without mention of one final enigmatic player, for Sheppard (2002 p.202) records that Turcaud was informed by a mineral identification expert that samples from the Paterson Ranges had been brought to him several months before Day Dawn ever visited the Paterson Ranges, but because he was still employed in the industry and fearful of repercussions he was reluctant to discuss the matter.

---

So what, in the face of this munificence to 'runners', which ranges (according to the recipients) from $15,000 to  $15m,  has Turcaud received for his discovery?  The short answer is less than nothing.  In February, 1978, in a letter to Ian Jones, Secretary, Telfer Branch, AWU,  Searls took the view that Turcaud's sampling and promotion of his prospect for further exploration entitled him to "no claim either legal or moral" with respect to discovery of the deposit, and credited Thomson with "bringing to Newmont's attention a copper gold prospect in a then undisclosed remote location", and then Tyrwhitt with visiting the prospect with Thomson, and taking samples, assaying them for gold, and thus "discovering the Telfer gold mine" for Newmont.  Even whilst writing the foreword to the official account in "Desert Gold" (Tyrwhitt, 1995), seventeen years later Searls knowingly and wrongly attributed "the discovery of the mine" to Tyrwhitt, even whilst Tyrwhitt credited for himself no more than pegging the claims.  But both of them falsely and knowingly attribute "..the ultimate detection (of the gold) (to) Ronnie Thomson of significant gold occurrences within the  gossans of the Paterson Range".  For in 1972 Tyrwhitt had tried to winkle from Koehn his notes maps and assays from the trip that predated Thomson's trip to the Paterson Ranges.  In 1972 truth was clearly not an issue in recording these initial events, nor was it by 1995, for had it been then even the most cursory and superficial enquiry would have revealed it, and probably much more than Sheppard (2002) was able to discover three decades after Koehn's trip.  One can only conclude that Searls' gratuitous trumpeting "honesty"  is a smoke screen.  And intended to be so.

It is against this fabrication, ...its initial creation in 1972, its perpetuation in Newmont's official account in 1995, and even to the present (2005), and against the promise by the Shadow Attorney General to Turcaud in 1975 of a Royal Enquiry into the affair (denied by successive governments),  that the question of justice embodied in the subsequent events surrounding ' The 'Quit' settlement in New York', must be judged.  Despite having been twice introduced to the prospect by Turcaud (and having twice indicated no interest) Newmont pegged the ground and secured possession, thus denying Turcaud any possible return through an agreement with a third party.  In itself (in a context of Fair Trading) that would appear to be legally questionable regardless of the source of the information whereby Newmont became interested a third time, but when the source of the information can be shown to derive directly from Turcaud anyway, the question of 'legality' (or rather ('illegality' in respect of Fair Trading)  is increased.