Hi Mgm1a, and thanks for your comments. I would make the following points with regard to the finance - of course none of us outside of RED really knows what has gone on in the discussions, so what I say may not be based on correct assumptions:
1. On the face of it I believe the original offer by DB/Ashmore did not include warrants. The Asia Presentation referred to 2 facilities (US$25 m + 15m), but had no warrants mentioned. That presentation was on 13 July. The North American presentation, prepared a couple of weeks later also in July, specifically referred to the warrants.
2. My view is that project finance offers of debt do not have equity sweeteners in them (as opposed to small corporate facilities offered pre BFS being completed). I believe DB crossed the line in seeking such from RED for a major project finance proposal, and I believe that the whole mining industry will now be aware of what was being sought and will be very careful to get into bed with DB. Thats just my view, I have worked in project finance previously (for 7 years, albeit it was pre-GFC), but I have not seen this done before and have not seen it done recently in other companies that I follow.
3. IF the DB/Ashmore offer was something reasonably acceptable I believe RED would have already made a decision to go with the offer by now, but clearly the terms of the offer are not as attractive as would have been presumed from the earlier announcements made by RED.
4. I agree with you, that a debt facility would be far more preferable from a share valuation point of view, and any conventional debt facility would be far preferrable to raising funds through a further equity raising. But as must be the case here, the fine print in the debt offer must also be reasonable and commercially acceptable. The DB/Ashmore offer warrants might actually be a poison pill that enables the bank to hold a controlling stake over RED in the event of a takeover too, which takes RED out of control in any negotiations with the takeover company! Of course, it depends upon how many warrants are being issued.
5. I believe that unless RED is already well advanced with other financial institutions then any alternative take up of debt finance will require a considerable time to complete due diligence and therefore will certainly impinge on development timetables. Thus RED may have to either accept the DB/Ashmore offer (or a negotiated variation of that), or a more vanilla equity raising.
I hope that RED is very much advanced with all these discussions, as clearly we need to have an announcement of such in the next couple of weeks to ensure the development timetable is not affected.
Hi Rick64. As I have mentioned earlier, I'm not really aware of the intentions of the BOTS, other than the general understanding that it allows a party to constantly make small trades at a general level. I don't believe that really affects the trading much, but gives me more confidence that at least these are bigger traders either getting in or out, and with the fact that Baker Steel is just getting in my impression is that the BOTS are working for the good of a higher share price. But thats just a biased opinion.
Hi Andrewk65. Good to see your post. In fact I was a HC poster for a long time, but I got banned as a result of someone accusing me of having 2 different identities. (It was someone on another thread, not the RED threads I believe and I think it was done as I was telling too many hard truths about a company! - thats my view anyway). I have found ASF to be a very good website for posting, with much less emotionally charged posts, and the website allows me to post what I consider to be relevant to the discussion about RED without the constant intervention of moderators (who have a role and I respect that role, whether it be HC or ASF). I try to ensure my posts are correct, certainly not aimed to be just a ramp (although I am very much biased with seeing RED go up of course, as I have lots of RED shares!).
Now about your query on the processing facility. Well I did make comment that the processing facility was standard for gold ores. But I don't want to give you the impression that its similar to a stock standard process that might go into, say a coffee machine etc.
What I mean by it being standard, is that the Siana ore has metallurgical characteristics not dissimilar to many others (although there is some element of refractory gold as we know the recovery is around 85% for open pit and 87% for underground ore). Those particular metallurgical characteristics have been determined based on considerable representative sampling of past diamond holes, undertaken by independent labs (AMMTEC, Orway, Amdel etc) supervised by an independent metallurgical group. That procedure is the norm for the gold industry.
Having determined what those metallurgical characteristics, RED and its consultants, have determined a processing route that entails crushing, SAG milling, carbon in leach (cyanide) processing, standard electrowinning etc. (There is also an indication that the underground ore may have potential for a zinc concentrate, and subject to zinc price at the time RED may develop a separate floatation circuit to recover a zinc concentrate in year 5 or so).
The appointed EPCM engineering firm, TWP, is overseeing the development of a design that encompasses the specific metallurgical inputs for Siana, plus the designated throughput rate.
Thus the processing facility will be designed specifically for the requirements of Siana, but with the standard processing flowsheet of crushing and grinding, cyanidation in tanks with activated carbon (to grab the gold), followed by standard elution of gold and electrowinning circuits. This requires a fair degree of engineering designwork, and the preparation of many different tender packages covering civils, mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc engineering for sub-contractors etc. The plant also has to be designed to accomodate water balance, etc for a maximum 1 million tpa throughput rate. But throughput rate varies from year to year according to the different hardness of rock, (being initially softer oxide from open pit to harder underground rock in year 4).
From this you may realise that it is still a considerable number of issue to develop even a standard gold treatment facility, but I can assure you that most processing facilities of this size can be completed within a timeframe of around 8 months (including design) and its the long lead time items, such as SAG mill that tend to rule the final commissioning of the project.
I have pointed out though, that there are many aspects that will need to be started soon to ensure that April gold pour is met, so I believe that funding will have to be completed within the next few weeks to ensure the continuity of the program can be achieved. So far RED has managed to continue to work from internal cash but soon it must have the funding in place to make the commitments for outstanding requirements.
Even if RED was delayed a month or so, from my point of view I am not fussed, but its very important that RED can deliver within a reasonable timeframe, to retain the confidence of its shareholders and investors in the market place.
I do believe that some of the posters on HC at present are quite mischievous, and I don't really know if maybe they are disenchanted former employees of RED, or perhaps are representing investors who are seeking to hold down RED share price to secure a financially more attractive deal to possible takeover parties, or are just frustrated shareholders (but I doubt the latter!). Who knows, but one thing is for sure, its important to make proper representation to the market, and I'm certainly very concerned with miss-information that is a negative for RED investment, far more than it deserves.