Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-79

No doubt they are working very closely with noteholders that have been reasonably accommodating up to this point.
There is a history of capitalising payments that AJM could not afford, and this may once again be an option, although it would be reasonable to assume some frustration on the part of financiers that cannot even get smaller amounts of funds flowing their way, such as the waiver fee you mention. Also further capitalizing of payments will only increase the difficulty of obtaining new financing on reasonable terms.
I think management is doing all they can to increase market interest in the company, including turning attention back to the prospective gold tenement they previously ran a 12 hole RC drilling campaign on.
To my mind AJM is in a very different position to PLS in terms of net debt and it is disappointing not to see further plant improvements with costs having plateaued and this current Sept quarter having less favourable fx conditions. This is compounded by market pricing reported by several agencies below US$400dmt CIF China.
2 consecutive quarters of 60% recoveries was a surprise.
The cost projections presented at the time of last year's rights issue have not been realised.
Best case scenario IMO is the positivity seen this week continues and a CR can be arranged.
It would seem too late to use the LDA facility for the near term commitments. As you are well aware $50m may appear to be a large sum on paper, but in reality it would be a lengthy process to draw down meaningful amounts and the market would soon grow weary absorbing the additional shares hitting the market twice a month.
A prepayment from an offtaker may appear to be an attractive solution, but it is in effect cash for noteholders at the expense of future revenue. More kicking the can down the road. Raising funds through equity would be a more sound option IMO.
I do not have confidence that a refi on similar terms to PLS can be achieved. As mentioned PLS net debt was significantly lower than AJM prior to their refi - still is for that matter - and to my mind and others I have conferred with, the PLS plant is operating better than AJMs now. That was demonstrated in their quarterly report where they showed that despite only running at 65% capacity for the month of June, costs were approx US$74wmt lower when using AJMs preferred methodology. Frankly if there were still issues at the PLS plant, BNP would not have provided the deal.
To AJMs credit, many have written them off in the past, myself included, and they have managed to find solutions. So it would be wrong for me to do so again.
They are a great team and got the plant performing consistently rapidly.
Timing has not been a great friend to the company but they have a never give in attitude.