Special Considerations In Project Finance For The Industrial Minerals Industry

INTRODUCTION Documentary complications arise from the risk apportionment in project financing which generally means that once the project is up and running and has satisfied the lender's completion test, the loan agreement specifically limits the lender's recourse to the project and its assets. It is the purpose of this paper to describe the special considerations which apply to industrial minerals projects and explore the reasons why so few project financings are negotiated in this industry. SIZE Small projects do not warrant the relatively high costs of negotiating and documenting project financing. The extent of the documentation is directly proportionate to either (a) the degree of risk apportionment, or (b) the amount of control given to lawyers to negotiate the documents. Although one would like to believe that project-finance documentation could be off-the-shelf, it is almost always necessary to tailor the documents to the mine development itself and the individual desires of the borrower. Accordingly, the documentation costs and initial expenses are seldom less than $40,000, and for complex projects can reach $400,000. In addition, banks often charge an up-front fee to partly compensate them for their staff time and partly to increase their yield on what is deemed to be a "riskier" loan asset. Another factor is the generally lower debt:equity ratio when bankers are uncertain of the accuracy of the cash flow projections. The ratio of the amount of cash flow left over after debt service to debt service itself is a key tool for project finance (debt service coverage). Bankers will require a higher coverage ratio for industrial minerals projects because of the relatively higher uncertainties in the following categories: Prices Markets Geology/Quality Transportation Environmental This, in turn, means that lower debt:equity ratios are the norm for new industrial minerals projects. INDUSTRY STRUCTURE It is hardly worthwhile to generalise about a field as diverse as industrial minerals, but there are four other structural reasons why project financing has not been widely applied. 1. The most obvious example is the predominance of small-sized operations, largely a function of transportation economics. Geological conditions also contribute to their dispersion. 2. Often, the product is only a small part of a company's business in contrast to many petroleum, metals, or coal companies whose sole business is the production of the raw material. The construction industry is a good example here for cement, gypsum, crushed stone, sand and gravel, and the drilling-mud services business for barite and bentonite. A company is unlikely to jeopardise its main business through the failure of a project financing on one of its key inputs. The corrollary is that the mined input is often regarded as a cost centre and not run on the sort of economic basis suitable for project financing. 3. There may be a reluctance to reveal key aspects of an industrial minerals venture to an outsider for purely competitive reasons. Unlike the other minerals industries which readily share technical information at plant visits and