Ann: Plant Update - Name Plate Throughput Achieved, page-97

There can be little doubt in anyone’s mind who objectively looks at the company’s progress and entrenchment in an alien environment, that the foundations for a potentially impressive business are definitely being laid. It is a complex business being established in an environment unlike any other that most of us can envisage, and I do give management a huge amount of credit for what has been achieved over the years, and in particular over the last 2 years. That said, there can be equally little doubt in any objective reviewers mind that the company has consistently fallen short of the expectations that they have set in shareholders minds, and have hence enabled a climate of mistrust to undermine the full value of the foundations that have actually been laid. I won’t explore the reasons for the expectations mismatch, but they will need to be addressed to enable some lingering restraints to be cut free.

In this context, I believe that management decision to prematurely jump to quarterly updates for sales and production is misguided. While I can understand the ego motivations that would lend themselves to believing that they are ready to move to periodic, calendar based updates as opposed to event based updates - it further reinforces to me that Cedric is still grappling with how to manage an ASX listed start-up (which in many ways, we still are). I urge the BoD to only make this move after the company has achieved a “ going concern” status (in market confidence terms - not accounting terms), with the ability to sustain nameplate throughput and output. This means, 24x7, day in and day out. This also implies that supply side and demand side issues are supportive of this capacity. Once the market can be reassured that this status has been achieved (and the market still remembers Dec ‘16 cash flow positive assurances, and earlier Phase 3 capital raises...for instance), then and only then will a move to quarterly updates be accepted as par for the course. Credibility has to be re-established first. The loss of credibility has to be acknowledged in a change of approach and change of style, with regards to Investor Relations.

I remain committed to my NSL investment and the huge potential over time. But this sentiment is in the face of equal doses of “due to management” and “despite management”. I suspect that the market price reflects that I am not alone in this view. Time (overdue) for Cedric to take stock of the IR agenda of our company and reflect that lessons have been learned.

All IMO and GLTA.