Judging by you’re and other people’s commets and questions I...

Judging by you’re and other people’s commets and questions I don’t think you do understand the difference between a rights issue and capital raising to institutional and sophisticated investors. With the loan funds locked down the company would have had plenty of time and money already existing in its treasury to commence building the mine, do exploration and organise a rights issue to existing shareholders at a later time which would have taken advantage of the rise in the gold price and not diluted shareholders existing interests.

If the equity placements that took place are tied to the loan agreement in any way, ie a precondition of the loan arrangements, then this would have needed to be disclosed to shareholders as that would effectively significantly increase the cost of the loan.

We can only assume that the loan and the capital raisings are independent raisings/events and this is what the board considered the best decision for shareholders. The comment by Richard about the raisings being a “reality” makes me think there might be something that hasn’t been fully disclosed. What does “reality” actually mean in this particular case? What it means in practice is a value give away, so not a smart decision IMO if the raising wasn’t forced on the board as a precondition to getting the loan.

Eshmun