Standard Bank, page-6

Hi Donedeal,
Chose not to respond to the Standard Bank question because it had been discussed over and over while nothing has changed. One can only say things so many time and I'm sorry for jacob9405 and the likes who came in late and thus not always getting the responses.

But, specially for Jacob9405 and the other poster (who also posed the earlier question): IMO, NO BANK, including Standard Bank, will fund the SDL project unless it is economically viable over the long term. Apart from the fact that SDL management, from my perspective, has spread (as usual) ambiguous BS about the Standard Bank "role/involvement" from a funding perspective (i'll explain below), there is no way in the world that Standard bank will have entered into an agreement to fund (which as I say is BS in any event) unless it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY conditional! Right now there are no indications that SDL will be a sustainable project with significant profit margings, such that it will satisfy Standard Bank or any other banks concerns to get their 4.5BIL back. No ways!! And this is the plain and simple reason why SDL don't have funding and won't get funding in the near term as a result of the I/O outlook. Their only chance to get this thing off the ground is to sell off the infrastructure and a part of the mine and then get debt funding for the remainder of the mine (probably approx 750mil - 1 bil).

Why I say that the Standard Bank (another twisting, duping word-play by certain persons from SDL) is not in the picture at all at this stage is because, imo, Standard bank may have offered to use their "account/book" (can't recall what the term is that was used at the time) to "underwrite" or back-up any funding arrangements elicited from other financial institution - not to use its own "book" to actually fund this project. Standard bank was appointed as lead funding arranger - that's it! and for this, Standard Bank would have promised to "underwrite" (with its own "book/account") all those funds that would have been arranged by Standard Bank. So basically, Standard Bank giving and standing as "guarantee" for those funding institutions which Standard bank accepts and approves. Any belief that Standard bank would, or is meant to fund, this project must be discarded outright (IMO). Alternatively, if by any remote chance, Standard Bank did in fact agree to fund (as opposed to "underwrite/guarantee) the project, it would be, as stated, highly, highly conditional - so much so that Standard bank won't even bother to draw the SDL file from the cabinet at this stage.

It's always been the legacy of SDL - the ambiguity -!