On revenues of $6.4mn, cost of inputs alone was a mere $300k...

On revenues of $6.4mn, cost of inputs alone was a mere $300k less. What a joke. Here's a genius idea, don't enter big contracts to sell something for less than it costs to produce.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there has not been a single announcement about bad quality feedstock this year, note the following comment in the report:
"The significant increase in the net loss for the period reflects the increase in maintenance cost, cost of process improvement implemented & poor quality of the raw materials (Feedstock) supplied, which in turn led to a higher unit cost of production."

If true (only announced in the annual report), surely this is an ASIC violation, not releasing market sensitive information?

The only ray of light is
"The imported cost of this feed stock will show a reduction of some 30+% against current feedstock costs"

However, even with a 30% reduction in input costs, we're still running at a loss based on current year revenue/expenses, which is a scary thought. Base expenses of 9.4m for inputs/employees/depreciation would reduce to 7.6m (30% reduction on cost of inputs), on revenue of 6.4m...