Right, thanks for the explanation, I understand now what you...

Right, thanks for the explanation, I understand now what you meant by Darlot mitigating Reds hedges; you were referring to Darlot increasing gold production at Red, which falls in line with my understanding of how hedges work.

I was actually curious as to your answer as most of the stuff you've posted in the past is quite insightful, thought maybe there was a component to hedging that I didn't understand.

I wasn't trying to make it out like you were purposely misleading anyone, I was more making the point that the statement was misleading, not so much your intentions. Which is why I asked you to clarify, which you have done. Thank you.

I get that Darlot has at least 2 years of production, what I don't get is that with a merger pending, why anyone would be locking in a 2-year contract. I assume after the merger that more options would be available. Red most definitely should not be confident in making yet another 2-year contract at possibly what I would say is one of the worst timings ever...

Apart from that I was more so making a comment at the long mine life of Reds, in which I meant that they obviously have more than 2 years of mine life in general (didn't mean specifically at Darlot); also, I was specifically talking about the overall production in the next 2 years at Red, most likely Reds' performance will pale in comparison to other unhedged gold miners.

A long mine life also translates to a long time to decide whether or not to do a M/A, the next two years for Red just don't inspire confidence, I would say after a year or two, that I would be much more confident in Reds overall performance.