Ann: Company Update - Key Developments, page-263

Taking over 2 years seems ridiculous, but only if you think there is actually a person or team trying to process it.

Let's not kid ourselves, if that's what was happening it would have been granted or rejected within months, not years. It doesn't take two years to ask for clarification on hydrology, that would probably take weeks, maybe months, and the company would promptly respond, and the government would make their decision within a few more weeks or maybe months if they were particularly slack, which is not at all unusual for governments, but nothing like that takes two years if anyone is actually working on it.

Obviously what's going on is the government wants to know we can actually do what we say we can/will, and they want to ensure they're getting the kickback, er, voluntary royalty payment they want. No point in giving us a permit to build something we'll never be able to monetise and thus never be able to generate profits from in order to pay... ahem... voluntary royalties with. They know we don't really need the expansion permit until we've completed the 2KTPA plant, the delay will be negligible so it doesn't much hurt us and thus is doesn't much hurt them, so they don't care. We finish the current plant, get it running, demonstrate that we can and will expand successfully, negotiate our voluntary royalty amount, and magically we'll get our permit. That's just how it works in most of the world, South America being a great example. Even Australia isn't always that much different other than being far more opaque.

If you think it's taken someone in an office two years to bother grabbing the rubber stamp or to bother asking for clarification about some detail and that's the actual reason it has taken fully two years and counting, you're just not seeing the reality of what's obviously happening. It's not coincidence that shortly before we're in commercial production they ask for clarification on some environmental impact (which they could have done two years ago if they read it, which obviously they did and obviously they'd have asked two years ago if it was actually a point of concern) so as to give a plausible reason for the delay and granting the permit. Neither side can openly say 'we're waiting on finalisation of the permit pending ostensibly voluntary royalty negotiations' or anything of the sort, but we as individuals shouldn't feel anything is stopping us from reading between the lines or seeing obvious reality and understanding that when it comes to official information, it doesn't have to match reality.

The timing isn't crazy coincidence, the nature of a "voluntary royalty" system isn't exactly difficult to understand (I find it comical they actually used such a transparent term), the time line of the permit only seems puzzling if you actually think the government was genuinely trying to process it efficiently according to environmental impact and nothing more (honestly, is there anyone who genuinely believes the only thing which influenced whether or now we get the permit is environmental impact? Maybe a naive, idealistic 12 year old school kid, but any adults?). Try doing business outside of the west and you'll quickly get a dose of reality.

The fact that the local government recently did a PR stunt taking up the community benefits of our project shows you that they're preparing to give it to us soon. It's no coincidence that they did it recently, not a year ago, not 18 months ago. The government wants the people to be happy about the government's decision. They're not going to talk us up to the local people then block us. They're not going to talk us up to the local people then be unable to give us the decision for another 12 months. Stop being naive, look any deeper than the cover story and it all makes perfect sense. Governments, businesses etc and in most cases individual people all do what is best for themselves - understanding this will guide you much better than just listening to everything at face value.