Search Documents

By Randy McMeekin, Chris Twigge-Molecey, J. Peter Blake

The business objectives of a metallurgical project determine targets and constraints, such as the range of products, production capacities, in-service dates, and capital and operating cost parameters. Permitting is usually left to the project team, as are decisions regarding site location, technology, and construction approach. Success requires an orderly methodology, represented in this book by front end loading (FEL) phases: FEL1 examines several alternative approaches; FEL2 ranks and eliminates less economically or technically attractive options; and FEL3 develops the preferred option to the point of major permit completion, with defined scope, schedule, and cost to submit for approval to proceed with implementation in FEL4. Working through FEL1, FEL2, and FEL3, the project definition improves, estimates become more accurate, and project risks are reduced. The project design basis at the end of FEL3 is the control document for project implementation in FEL4.

Jan 1, 2015

Successfully managing project development and construction has often been a challenge in the mining industry. This is reflected in the number of projects that have taken longer to build, exceeded their budgets and then struggled to achieve the performance targets so confidently predicted beforehand. This paper outlines the fundamental elements of project management necessary to deliver mining projects on time and on budget, and performing as originally intended. It looks at areas such as the study process, project planning, team selection and structure, project controls, types of contracts used and approaches to contract management.

Jan 1, 2006

By C Pope, M Tannock

Mining exploration and development projects in Australia are being negatively affected by the highly complex regulatory and bureaucratic processes at all levels of government. These processes affect mining companies operating in Australia by impacting on timelines and the cost of developing a mining project. It is not uncommon for the granting of project approvals to take in excess of five years, meaning that mining companies struggle with productivity, efficiency, time frame and cost issues in respect to their projects in Australia. As the mining boom in Australia is moving from the investment to the production phase, it is now more important than ever to maintain a regulatory landscape that facilitates rather than discourages new investment.While one of our key arguments is that there is too much burdensome regulation and red tape in Australia, we are also strongly believe that regulatory intervention is necessary to ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place to serve the public interest and manage environmental, health and safety, social and other development-related impacts that may arise from a mining project. However, the regulatory intervention in Australia has come to a point where it is excessive and starting to discourage valuable investment in mining projects for nominal return to the public. Excessive regulation or ‘red tape’ impedes productivity and competitiveness, deters investment and innovation and costs jobs, all of which ultimately impact on the growth of Australia and the standard of living of all Australians.This paper aims to examine and compare the federal, state and local regulations that govern mining projects in Australia. It will highlight how these regulations are unnecessarily complex, lengthy and duplicated and how they can be streamlined to reduce red tape. In doing so, the paper will evaluate the recommendations proposed by the Productivity Commission Report on Major Project Assessments released in 2013, which include the recommendation to move to a ‘one project, one assessment, one decision’ regulatory model.CITATION:Pope, C and Tannock, M, 2015. Project development and regulation red tape – a comparative analysis: does it need to be so complex?, in Proceedings Iron Ore 2015, pp 621–630 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Jul 13, 2015

By David A. Milligan, William Cobb

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the reader with a sense of how a heap leach project may make an orderly, and hopefully non-traumatic, transition from discovery or acquisition to project construction. In making this transition a project can pass through several project development phases (i.e. ore definition and delineation, conceptual engineering, detailed engineering, and ultimately on to project construction and operation). "Go" or "no go" decisions may occur at any point in each of these phases. The transition from ore definition to detailed engineering should be accomplished via a well thought out program of interdisciplinary studies and an integrated, interdisciplinary project team. This chapter also describes, in general terms, a "roadmap" approach to the project evaluation process that must occur as project planning and development progress. It is the experience of the authors, as well as a myriad of companies who have been through the heap leach project development process, that a systematic approach will save many headaches, and many dollars. In fact, it is safe to say that a project with no formalized system of "objectives setting" and "milestone charting" may well flounder along the way, even if an economic ore body exists. Many papers and technical articles have been written about various aspects of mineral resource appraisal, economic evaluation, and mine development. Most of these invoke the same general philosophy of a systematic approach to project evaluation and development, although methods cited for attaining goals are quite variable. This is undoubtedly appropriate, given the fact that there is great variation in approach to project development (e.g., climatic considerations, ore body size and physical ore characteristics, permitting constraints, etc.). For the purposes of this chapter, two primary sources of information have been used to highlight the "road map" approach previously alluded to. These sources are cited throughout the text as Mackenzie (1980) and Snow and Michel s (1986). A brief summary of each of these sources is provided below: Brian GJ. Mackenzie of Queens University (Mackenzie, 1980) has developed a wealth of information concerning project development topics. Much of this information is synthesized in his notes for a short course entitled : "Mineral Exploration Planning and Economic

Jan 1, 1988

With the recent collapse in commodity prices the size and number of resources project has diminished markedly in recent years. Coupled with the disappearance of the "open cheque book approach", this has led to a revival of the lump sum or turn key project. The key features of this mode of development are compared with the "owner managed" and "reimbursable cost plus fee" alternatives - with respect to schedule, cost and quality control. Key facts for the successful implem- entation of this mode of development are identified. However, the approach is not advocated for all projects and the potential shortfalls are also identified.

Jan 1, 1986

By B. R. Boardman

Project Environmental Approval is a multi-faceted issue. From a mining perspective, it is a costly item because of avoidable time delay. The government perspective is that the approvals are a necessary part of meeting departmental requirements to ensure that the wellbeing of other uses of the environment is maintained. This paper outlines some of the problems inherent in the environmental approvals process and makes recommendations to both the proponent and government about improving the efficiency of the process.

Jan 1, 1978

By D. F. Sinclair

It is often said in business that if you don't have a customer you don't have a business. The same rule applies to project evaluation; if you don't have customers you really don't have a viable project. It is therefore essential that in the early stages of project evaluation the following fundamental questions are addressed: ? What products will this project produce? ? Who are the potential customers? ? What are the customers' requirements with respect to grade and impurities? ? Do they have adequate capacity to take the production from the proposed project? ? Will the products introduce adverse effects in the customer's process circuits? ? Will additional waste streams requiring disposal be produced? In the past the attitude has been along the lines of the customer will take whatever we produce at the mine site. Times have now changed with customers now operating under much tighter environmental regulation with waste disposal becoming increasingly difficult. It would therefore be prudent that the principles of product stewardship be used as a tool in project evaluation. This paper will provide a general discussion on customer requirements and provide detail on case studies of the impact of mine products on smelter process circuits. It will provide examples where there were synergies between the mine product and the smelter circuit and where the mine product had adverse impacts on smelter performance.

Jan 1, 2007

It is often said in business that if you donÆt have a customer you donÆt have a business. The same rule applies to project evaluation; if you donÆt have customers you really donÆt have a viable project. It is therefore essential that in the early stages of project evaluation the following fundamental questions are addressed: What products will this project produce? Who are the potential customers? What are the customersÆ requirements with respect to grade and impurities? Do they have adequate capacity to take the production from the proposed project? Will the products introduce adverse effects in the customerÆs process circuits? Will additional waste streams requiring disposal be produced? In the past the attitude has been along the lines of the customer will take whatever we produce at the mine site. Times have now changed with customers now operating under much tighter environmental regulation with waste disposal becoming increasingly difficult. It would therefore be prudent that the principles of product stewardship be used as a tool in project evaluation. This paper will provide a general discussion on customer requirements and provide detail on case studies of the impact of mine products on smelter process circuits. It will provide examples where there were synergies between the mine product and the smelter circuit and where the mine product had adverse impacts on smelter performance.

Jan 1, 2007

By L I. Rozman

"There have always been development projects that fall short of expectations. In the last decade, we have seen more than the usual number of mining and oil/gas development projects taking significantly longer to develop and costing materially more than expected. The recent resource-equity market slump proves that investors are now far more cautious about investing new capital in the mineral and petroleum resources sector.What have we learned since 2005? Why have projects missed their targets? Why do investors often feel misled?Valuation of a project and the estimation of value is a more complex process than the evaluation of the merits of project development. The merit of project development can be clear from a prefeasibility evaluation, but this is no reason to skip the rigour of a feasibility study. The valuation of any project that is developed with any added risk should be discounted for this added risk.The development of a project impacts on other stakeholders, and the indirect cost of these impacts can have material implications for the cost structure, time and ultimate valuation of the project for its financial backers. The development of new projects (and thereby supply) can also have an impact on commodity prices, and therefore an impact on returns for financial backers.This paper will provide commentary on the author’s experiences and observations as a project developer and operator for 25 years, before becoming a project financier a decade ago.CITATION:Rozman, L I, 2016. Project evaluation and valuation – an investor’s golden rule, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 31–36 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By J D. van Wees

Preliminary project evaluation is relevant to the evaluation process of the decision makers (or executives) prior to making the critical business choices. Important to the assessment is an integrated sensitivity, scenario and risk analysis at every stage of a mining project. This should include the evaluation of different options taking into account uncertainties. Construction of interactive financial computer models where each element is functionally integrated into a fully integrated life-cycle allows rapid and automatic study of the sensitivity of each element through changes in the value of an input. The scenario analysis is the effect of changing more than one input at a time, organised through scenarios in a decision tree. Risk analysis is an integrated analysis of the effect of all uncertainties of the parameters, using Monte Carlo simulation. Key to the asset decisions process is that the decision maker is provided with the essential integrated decision information. We have clustered this information into several scenario groups. Within each group, two levels of uncertain information are distinguished: discrete scenarios critical for the decisions; and remaining uncertainty within the scenario (risk analysis) which can be modelled by continuous probability density functions (pdfÆs). For an asset, the relevant scenarios in each group and the associated continuous pdfÆs need to be defined. When the scenario groups and associated pdfÆs have been defined for the asset, the decision process can be started by structuring the different scenario groups in a Scenario Tree. A Scenario Tree contains decision and end nodes. Each end node corresponds to a completely defined mine project or asset model. The calculations for each end node result in a set of stochastic realisations for the reserves, production forecast, cash flow, and profitability indicators (NPV, IRR, DPR). Thus, a deterministic and fully probabilistic multi-commodity analysis tool is provided to investigate the sensitivity and robustness of decisions.

Jan 1, 2003

By Dr. O’Neil Thomas J., Donald W. Gentry

"We can easily represent things as we wish them to be..” -Aesop INTRODUCTION The first eight chapters of this book have primarily addressed the concepts and fundamentals associated with project valuation, particularly as they apply to mining-related projects. Specific emphasis was placed on the engineering and economic parameters and estimates necessary for quantifying line items in pro forma income statements and the subsequent calculation of net annual cash flows. Given these estimates of relative benefits, costs, and annual cash flows for a project, it then becomes necessary to convert these estimates into measures of relative desirability or attractiveness. The criteria and techniques typically utilized to determine project acceptability or desirability are, then, the topics of discussion in this chapter. Before proceeding it may be advantageous to put the problem of project evaluation into proper perspective by reiterating some of the fundamental concepts developed in Chapter 1. The basic premise set forth in this book is that the objective of the firm should be to maximize its value to its owners (stockholders' wealth). This value or wealth is represented by the market price of the firm's common stock; consequently, the primary objective of the firm can be restated as one of maximizing the value (price) of the firm's common stock in the marketplace over the long term. This price, in effect, is an indicator or index of the market's perception of the company's progress and a reflection of the investment, financing, and dividend decisions made by corporate management. These three major decisions are inter- related and jointly impact the market price of the firm's stock. Therefore, if the objective of maximizing the value of the firm to its stockholders is to be achieved, an optimal combination of the three decisions will be necessary. It is important to emphasize that maximizing stockholder wealth is not the same as profit maximization or even the maximization of earnings per share. Corporate managers making decisions based on the objectives of maximizing profits and/or earnings per share must recognize that these objectives do not consider: (I) the timing or duration of expected returns, (2) the business and financial risks of the promised earnings, or (3) the dividend policy of the firm. Obviously all of these factors are of concern to the company's stockholders and will have an effect on the market value or price of the firm's common stock. Maximizing market price per share, or wealth maximization, is therefore the appropriate corporate objective and

Jan 1, 1984

The general principles of technical due diligence best practice that are involved in assessing a mineral property in the early stages of its development are described and a bibliography of relevant papers is attached. The issues specific to the evaluation of gold deposits are highlighted. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy's (The AusIMM) initiatives in this area, dealing with the proper public reporting of Reserve/Resource information (JORC Code) and property assessment/valuation (VALMIN Code), will be used as a framework against which the illegal tampering with drilling samples to artificially boost their gold content (salting) from the Busang gold deposit (Kalimantan, Indonesia), owned by Bre-X Minerals Limited (Calgary, Canada), will be reviewed. While the Busang saga was based upon fraud, through salting the samples, the general lessons to learn from such a scam are worth documenting. In Australia, most of those working in the mineral industry belong to long established professional institutes and consultant associations (eg The AusIMM or Mineral Industry Consultants Association [MICA]) that require their members to work within their technical limits and to comply with best practice guidelines, or risk being judged and found wanting by their peers in the context of strong Ethics Codes. There is also a strong interface between such representative professional bodies and the corporate and financial market regulators (ASC/ASX), which closes the monitoring loop. Canada has only now seen the wisdom of having this type of early warning system in place. Fraud and deliberate deception will be always possible, but deception on the enormous scale that occurred at Busang is most unlikely with proper surveillance systems in place and the use of accredited technical professionals. There should have been more hard data available about so big and rich a deposit owned by a C$6Bn company.

Jan 1, 1997

By R Knight

"In project evaluation there are two matters of keen interest to non-executive directors: the process by which an investment recommendation is reached, as well as the investment itself, as presented. It is sometimes mistakenly believed that Boards of directors are interested only in the result. That is not so. The process by which project evaluations are derived and socialised with the Board is as important as the result, sometimes more so.Setting aside the gloomy predictions of the doomsayers and looking through short-term volatility in supply and demand, the overall availability of mineral resources more often than not exceeds demand. There are in reality more development projects in prospect at any one time than are needed to meet the market. Only the fittest will prosper, although some others may survive.Optimism springs eternal in the mining industry and every project promoter, executive or entrepreneur has a convincing project development case. Some will create value for shareholders, but the historical evidence suggests that many will fail to meet the expectations set in their evaluation.Boards of directors make the final decision to invest, or not, in a new mine. Knowledge is power, and on that basis the balance of power favours management. Management has the facts (or in some cases, what passes for fact) and the passion to invest. The non-executives have the power of approval – yes or no – but before making a decision directors must demonstrate due diligence, the essential precursor to project approval.Management has a vital part to play in facilitating that due diligence process and in encouraging the independent thought processes of the Board. A closed approach by management fosters a negative, risk-averse attitude on the part of the Board. One that encourages an understanding of the rigour of the project evaluation process and the robustness of the result will allow directors to understand better the implications of their decision.CITATION:Knight, R, 2016. Project evaluation – a non-executive director’s perspective, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 11–19 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By D. M. Slavich

"In today's operating and investment climate, project evaluation is both more important and more difficult. It is more important because economic and financial analyses of a proposed project provide a basis for judgment of a project's commercial viability by equity participants, lenders and, in some cases, other participants such as off takers and governments. It is more difficult because these analyses must, of necessity, be based on estimates, projections and evaluations which must be made in a period remarkable for its economic and political uncertainty.Project evaluation starts with the analysis of the engineering, commercial and financial information available. Beginning with the preliminary design and capital cost estimates, alternative financing plans can be developed outlining possible sources of funds, terms and security arrangements. Pro-forma financial statements can also be developed, including sources and uses of funds, cash flow schedules, income statements and balance sheets. With these results, various profitability measures can be determined.Subsequently, in an effort to deal with uncertainty, these results can be tested by measuring the impact on project viability and profitability of changes in project and external variables such as product process, mining and processing rates, operating and financing costs, currency exchange rates and other factors.The results are a number of financial projections reflecting different assumptions for key project parameters. The projections can be used to structure the project to achieve the maximum financial performance. Projects, the financial viability and profitability of which can be demonstrated under varying market conditions, will be the most competitive in capital markets."

Jan 1, 1982

By John A. Wells, Leticia Conca, Kenneth G. Thomas

"Since about 2002 there has been significant capital cost escalation, not inflation, in the mining industry causing turmoil for successful project completion. Project capital costs have more than doubled and some cases tripled in this time period. This has rendered many projects to be economically challenged and in some cases not viable. In addition higher than expected operating costs have further adversely affected project metrics such as NPV and IRR. Capital cost increases for projects have been widely reported globally. This current paper reviews three items. Firstly, why such capital increases and the various components that make up capital estimates. Secondly, it looks at reasons why preliminary estimates, for example at scoping and pre-feasibility level, have been lower than the ultimate constructed costs. Such increases and differences in estimates have caused major problems for mine builders and have led to a general nervousness on the part of those providing project finance. Thirdly, what discipline is needed in project execution in an attempt to mitigate such capital increases. The paper will hopefully give a better understanding of the various issues and factors involved for those in the mining industry.INTRODUCTION The years 2012 and 2013 were a turbulent time for the mining industry. The European economic crisis, politics, metal price volatility and a wave of changes of CEO´s in some of the major mining companies all contributed to a challenging couple of years. Two issues stood out. First, the huge increases reported in the capital costs of projects, where increases of 100% - 300% were not uncommon and in some cases exceeded that during the first decade of the 21st century. Second, company write downs related to takeovers during the boom and the stabilization/correction in commodity prices. These have led to great uncertainty, made it difficult (or impossible) to raise project financing costs, contributed to the changes at CEO level and placed many projects either on hold or cancelled altogether. It is commonplace now to read of companies talking of reduced capital expenditure and making a complete review of their projects and operations to contain costs."

Jan 1, 2014

By J Borthwick, M Yusi, M Douge

Feasibility studies form a vital and significant component of the project delivery cycle. They are at the heart of the valuation process. This paper focuses on variables which can affect a project and how these are assessed as part of the decision-making process through feasibility studies. Test work and site selection needs; the degree of engineering required to meet the study requirements and the quality of owner project information are discussed. Also, local factors including permitting needs, social, environmental and government relations are considered. Engineering and site factors are crucial in the estimating process. The interaction of detailed engineering, engineering assumptions and estimating methodologies are therefore examined. The ownerÆs perspective is considered along with risk analysis, which is fundamental in project feasibility study activities. The impact of this is also discussed.

Jan 1, 2009

By Kyle Wightman

INTRODUCTION CRA Limited is the largest mining group in Australia by value of sales and the second largest company in Australia in terms of share market capitalisation. In the past 25 years, CRA, its predecessors and affiliates have been involved in a number of mining and further processing developments in Australia and elsewhere. Many of these have been financed using project financing techniques. These include Comalco's development of the Weipa bauxite deposits in Northern Queensland in the late 1950's, the Hamersley iron ore developments in the Pilbara region of Western Australia in the mid 1960's, the Queensland Alumina Limited alumina refinery in Gladstone, Queensland, at about the same time, and the Bougainville copper project in 1969/70. In the past three years CRA has again utilised project financing techniques to fund its Tarong steaming coal project in Queensland, the Blair Athol steaming coal project also in that State and CRA's interest in the Argyle diamond project in the Kimberley region of Western Austrlia. PROJECT FINANCE DEFINED Nevitt Definition Nevitt's is the most frequently quoted definition - "A financing of a particular economic unit in which a lender is satisfied to look initially to the cash flows and earnings of the economic unit as the source of funds from which a loan will be repaid and to the assets of the economic unit as collateral for the loan." Risk and Balance Sheet Treatment It is important to focus in more detail on two aspects of project financing, risk and balance sheet treatment. The assessment of the various elements of risk in a project and the sharing of that risk between sponsors and lenders is the most critical feature. At one end of the spectrum is full absorption of risk by the sponsor(s). This can be described as "on risk" or "on credit" or "full recourse" to the sponsor(s) and is effectively a corporate financing. At the other end of the spectrum the lenders absorb the whole risk in a non-recourse financing which is "off risk" or "off credit" for the sponsor. The other aspect is the sponsor's balance sheet treatment. If the balance sheet of the economic unit undertaking the project and the financing need not be consolidated into the balance sheet of the sponsor (because ownership does not exceed 50%) then the financing may be described as off-¬balance sheet. If consolidation is required then the financing is described as on-balance sheet. Most project financings involve some recourse to the sponsor, i.e. they are limited recourse. Very few are non-recourse or off credit to the sponsor. Limited recourse financings may be on-balance sheet although many may also be off-balance sheet insofar as consolidation is concerned. However, sponsor support may very well be a contingent liability to the sponsor and require disclosure by way of note to the balance sheet should consolidation not be required. CORPORATE FINANCE CONTRASTED A financing which is on credit or full recourse to the sponsor, whether it is directly borrowed or guaranteed by that sponsor, is a corporate financing. Lenders will tend to base their credit assessment on a historical assessment of the sponsor's activities and its financial results rather than an assessment of the project or a detailed assessment of the future activities and prospects of the sponsor. PROJECT FINANCE - A BORROWER'S PERCEPTION Although CRA could choose to arrange all finance on a corporate basis (except perhaps for the very largest projects or acquisitions), project financing techniques provide a number of specific advantages which CRA has noted and which should be carefully considered by a project sponsor. Advantages

Jan 1, 1985

I have been asked to speak today on the topic of Project Finance in the Mining Industry. Through this presentation, I hope to give you a broad outline of the concept of project finance. The first half of the presentation covers the principles involved in project finance and the second half moves to aspects more specific to the mining industry. I have worked for 3 years at Rothschild Australia. Rothschild provide finance for projects in the mining industry, world wide. We finance both large and small projects, with facilities varying from $2m to $100m.

Jan 1, 1990

By J F. Penrose

To obtain cost-efficient financing by way of securing an optimal credit rating, the operating and market risks of a single-asset mining project should be accommodated in the financial structure. Weak financing structures can cause projects to fail, as evidenced by the Murrin Murrin and Bulong examples; these can be compared to the investment-grade structure of Straits (Nifty), which managed operational, market, and financing risks well. Most mining projects are capital-intensive, and have heavy dependency on debt financing. A weak financial structure may result in the early failure of an otherwise sound and economically viable project. Appropriate management of technology, construction, and management risks generally will get a project built; of the project failures that occur, most are caused by a liquidity crisis as the project goes through ramp-up (the transition period between completion of construction and full operation). A projectÆs viability can be enhanced through sound hedging practices, while poor hedging can increase the likelihood of financial default.

Jan 1, 2003

By C. Richard Tinsley

INTRODUCTION Project financing has been defined by various authors in this book. It is founded on reliance upon the project's own future cash flows and secondarily on the collateral value of the asset base developed. It is chiefly provided by the banking community who, after an assessment of the risks involved (See Chapter 9) analyse the company's presentation (See Chapter 10) in order to structure a financing package often at a leverage of up to 80% debt. This paper describes the various support and structuring techniques used to delimit and abate the risk components perceived from the banks' experience on project development especially for the period before cash flow is generated (pre completion). ADVANTAGES The advantages of project financing extend beyond the offloading of risks to banks. Among the advantages are the following: 1. Longer loan maturity than conventional, unsecured financing; 2. Loan disbursement and repayment tailored to specific mine; 3. Ability of a joint venture without a "track record" to raise financing; 4. Obtain financing where further direct borrowing (corporate credit) limited by existing indentures; 5. Possibility of arranging finance off-balance sheets; 6. Leverage return on equity; 7. Obtain tax savings with certain project financing structures; and 8. Obtain flexible loan repayment conditions. It can also be said that from the point of view of the company, project financing has certain disadvantages which can be summarised as follows: 1. Perceived higher cost (risk premium) compared with straight corporate credit; 2. More documentation; and 3. Need to negotiate risk-sharing aspects. The main attraction of project financing is the ability to pass certain risks on to the lenders within a flexibly funded transaction. (For a more detailed description of the specific risks see the author's paper at the beginning of Chapter 9. The same risk system is followed here.) The typical project financing has corporate support prior to completion and will usually carefully control the resultant cashflow after completion to ensure the bank does not unnecessarily assume further risks of an equity nature. WITHIN THE COMPANY'S CONTROL Operating Risk This is broken into three interrelated segments for ease of description. Technical Component: This must be specifically addressed if new technology or unproven adaptations are to be used. The banks will have scrutinized the sampling and bulk testing work, perhaps grilling the geological, mineral processing, metallurgical, and mining engineering staff or consultants directly. A number of supports are available such as: TECHNOLOGY GUARANTEE: Either the company itself or the process developer will guarantee that the technology will work for a period of, say, six months to two years after startup. If not, then financial penalties will apply although these are rarely sufficient to repay the loan. Many process developers are weak financially and may have little substance to back such a guarantee.

Jan 1, 1985