To continue my thought:If clearly profitable, other than...

To continue my thought:

If clearly profitable, other than cashflow issues due to 2 months delayed cashflows, then taking on the debt is relatively low risk (as the delayed cash is quite guaranteed to come in, if no Thai/government shenanigans). So if the NPAT is clearly positive from production (I am not aware of the numbers, but management would be if that is the case), then it's just a matter of having enough cash to wait out the 2 month payment cycle.

Eg. the payment terms mean that we need a greater cash balance to fund start-up, to support an extra 2 months of staff, CAPEX and royalties, before we actually get the revenue to cover those costs. So it's an additional trouble pushed onto us be the government with their 'refine in Thailand' rule, likely with the contract given to a monopoly, who have bad payment terms. Forcing us into additional raisings and expensive debt. We don't have to fund 8 months of refurbishment for example, but 10.

But it's not purely negative: it can mean the debt may be low risk, if management saw the internal numbers as positive, and it's only a matter of waiting out the payment cycle for the revenue to come in, and wasting some interest/fees in the meantime.


I guess Lotus Hall (Nucharee) have reached the limits of their liquid cash, otherwise we could have offered 15%+ to them instead.


About the surprise jump in production in Nov (inferred number only - still not clarified by management) - that increased revenue for example should come in January. But I guess now we were nearing $0 cash at bank, so needed the $10m sooner.