IJ,let me first say that just regularly trotting out claims of...

IJ,
let me first say that just regularly trotting out claims of how cheap the shares are...got you zero.  I bet you never picked up a phone and gave an earful to management as to why the heck BRL is the laughing stock of the ASX.  

The "vocal posters" got you some change after all.  Thank them for doing your dirty job.  Meanwhile, all those "vocal posters" get no thumbs up...but people who are cheerleaders for this pathetic management get 5 thumbs up (just looking at your review for this post).  Skeptical investors, even if shareholders, are treated with disdain...coz most people don't want to admit their mistake in buying BRL.  I curse myself every day for buying into this crap management.

Now let this "vocal poster" tell you what is wrong with this presentation..coz your cheerleading ain't going to do us any good. 

First, APR of NZ$214/t equals US$182.  Benchmark prices in Oct-Dec averaged US$218.  But wait...something is wrong here.  If you do 80% of benchmark, you get US$174.  BRL hedged 25% of their sales...since the prices averaged higher than US$182, they could not have received US$174.  So what exactly is US$182?  Could it be that their (hedged) benchmark was actually US$182...and they received 80% (or most likely far less?) than this US$174?  As always, our brilliant management have given no clue on how they got this price.  In my books, chalk another one up for obfuscation from management...or perhaps they are trying their best to cover up their incompetence.  BRL management of course feels no need to bother explaining to us irrelevant minority shareholders what is going.  That Expat SIngapore fellow no longer talks to us...perhaps you can ask him to ask RIM to ask BRL and relay the answer backwards.

Next...the page on capital allocation.  Frankly, this page is disheartening.  It seems like there was zero free cash flow in 2018 July-Dec!  I count up to $40 million in various spending items.  No wonder they don't want to speed up share buy backs.  Sure...there is a stub comment "review after FY19 full year results".  Note that It did NOT say what they have been claiming all along...that this is a "contingency measure".  So is the truth that they just don't have any free cash flow...or is it really "contingency"?  Devoid of any footnote explanations, or an appendix with so many notes, that you want to complain...all I can assume is that this is NOT more of the same...that the company has way too many financial commitments to meet...and therefore no free cash flow.  Maybe that is what Mr. Market has been saying all along.  This Emperor has no clothes...much as IJ would like to put lip stick on this pig.

Next...Page 12 has this helpful explanation about "With Chinese production restrictions in place, price is likely to remain just shy of $200 FOB".  Meanwhile, June 2019 has hit a new high at US$191.5 as I type this out.  The whole futures curve is on a steady bull run.  2019 Dec is now at US$190.5.  And here is their insight..."With Chinese production restrictions in place"...so supply will be cut but somehow met coal prices won't go through the roof?  Economics 101...inventories are low, met coal supply is getting roasted all over the place...and yet our brilliant management is claiming that somehow met coal prices will stay just "shy of $200"?  The truth: they are yet again trying to cover up their incompetent hedging.  It is costing us, the owners of this business real $s.

Page 14.  Note the bottom right...Genesis Energy is a customer.  And the resources are given as 8.9 million tons and reserves at 2.3 million tons.  But wait...didn't Genesis complain of having to import coal from Indonesia?  How come BT/BRL could not come up with more coal when your key customer badly wants it?  To me, that throws their entire claims of reserves/resources into the trash can.  Another poke in the eye for BRL credibility as far as I am concerned.

Page 15.  This time there is no mention of who the customer is.  But there is a hint on page 16: "South Island coal as an energy source captive in the South Island". That suggests Genesis is the customer.  Now the same problem arises when looking at the reserves/resources claims.  A reserve is: the coal reserves of any particular place are defined as the amount of measured resource coal that could be expected to be economically mineable under the current economical and technological conditions 
So how come none of these 1.3 million tons could not be extracted when Genesis needed it?

Despite all their efforts at transparency, all these added pages do, is throw even more questions that go unanswered.