Ann: Reinstatement to Official Quotation, page-31

Long term holder here, welcome to all the new guys picking over our bones
My view is that management unfortunately committed a massive own-goal in the terms of Sprott agreement.
The financing gates were too restrictive. Secondly, they bailed on it too late: even after agreeing a new and additional break fee!
If the debt financing had stuck, they could have done a capital raise to cover the shortfall.
It also appears they were too slow in negotiating executing the main contracts with GRES and others, and didn't properly account for potential delay.
This is a bit of a surprise - I would have thought Tim Richards had sufficient experience from St Barbara to account for that.
If they had, they presumably wouldn't have been so exposed to inflation and cost overruns from the delay.
So the consequence of that was they had no room to maneuver when the capex rose and execution issues caused delay. They then had pretty much no option but to do a costly unwind.
What was the damage?
Well, a year ago they had about $145M of cash, excluding all the Sprott financing, which went back to Sprott unspent.
By the end of the June, it looks like they will be down to around $20M of cash.
So what is there to show for around $120M spent?
Just some drilling results.
What is the product of the 'strategic review' happening over the last six months? Nothing as far as I can see. Any sort of analysis of options and costs and benefits of any strategies? Not as far as I can see.
There might be some baggage left over from unsettled claims with the contractors - the presentation and risk disclosure hints at this.
Unless the expensive investment bankers they have hired come up with something amazing, the best result for shareholders is probably a hostile takeover. Selling the asset is no good. What would management do with the proceeds? No way they are going to return capital to shareholders or wind up.