Ann: Expiry of BMCG funding facility, page-111

Hi Sparecash,

Yes WKT has undrawn facilities under Gemcorps of US$20mil, Yet WKT detailed they required all but US$400k from this loan and have ordered generators that are reported to have an additional cost of US$1mil. It is unclear if the spare funds WKT claimed they have available are only due to deferred payments.

You have a view that everything is going well with the construction, I see things differently. WKT expected to commence mining in January, Yet the works have yet to occur, I believe some claimed it was to save interest costs,
We also have the US$1mil generators which were meant to be onsite in October, yet they are still yet to arrive on site. This could be another way to defer payments as previous agreements have stated the payments are due once the equipment lands in Tanzania.
I am also fairly certain Jinpeng's final payments were due once the plant had been handed over to WKT after successfully achieving the 840tpa production rate (not based on recovery of graphite).

You and I have different opinions on how much funds (if any) are available once all of these payments are completed.

What I find most deceiving about your posts is when you show that WKT's QTR cash balance had increased over the past 2 QTR to $6.3mil, you failed to mention the Gemcorps requirement for 2 QTR of loan repayments to be maintained at all times.
Based on the currently drawn $25mil, WKT would be required to hold $6.25mil in cash.

I have also shown the IIR report expected the OPEX for the processing facility will be around US$4.2mil per QTR ($6.3mil AUD), it is unlikely WKT will generate any sales over this period due to the issues with Tanzania ports and the testing period required for WKT's likely customers.

I see no reason why WKT would agree to forfeit the back up funding with BMCG, its in WKT best interest to have the these funds availalbe as they highlighted running out of funds during the ramp up period was a possiblity.
Lets say there was a major breakdown on site, or an issues with commissioning, or if the plant wasn't able to achieve the purity, flake size where additional equipment was required to rectify the issues. As you know it is going to take 3 months for any additional equipment to arrive on site based on the current shipping issues and this assumes any equipment is prefabricated in China.

Can you imagine what would happen if a CR was called after these unsubstantiated comments having been made that the directors agreed to the termination of the additional US$9.3mil BMCG had available. instead of your fellow holders calling this out for what it is (unsubstanited) they all support these claims to suck in more investors.

Its amazing that you guys able to provide a balanced debate where the risks with things not going to plan are just as likely as the sales pitch that everything would be right. You only need to look at WKT"s timelines of construction, 7-9 months to complete the project has taken well over 2 years and we are still going. It will be interesting to see how close WKT are with their guidance of 4 months to achieve the 300ktpa throughput and the 9 months way from hitting the DFS recoveries.

Anyway, one last point, If WKT agreed to forfeit the additonal US$9.3mil, I would have thought WKT would have clearly stated, we have mutually agreed to terminating the facilty rather than stating the facility had expired (I.e BMCG decided it would exit while it could)