Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-3

Have only been keeping a glancing eye on FMS threads lately (mainly in disgust) however thought I'd throw in a couple of paragraphs in regard to another stunning quarterly report!
Quarterly report for qtr end 30/9/21 hit us with the news that BBI had decided to shut all work at PIOP down with an arbitrary recommencement of activities in "April 2022". So 6 months with nothing happening and following on from the news that activity at PIOP prior to that had concentrated on rehab work which in effect means that work on the all important BFS had ceased some considerable time ago!!
This quarterly now advises that they plan to recommence rehab work in July 2022!! (This is despite no untoward events in the area which would cause such delays):-
"BBIH planned rehabilitation activities are re-forecast to commence in July 2022, with the PIOP camp anticipated to be reinstated in May/June 2022 to support scheduled heritage work."
And the forecast work for next quarter (To June 2022)?? Well not much by the look of this:
"Key activities planned by BBIH for the next quarter include continued planning in support of WGAC scope for Heritage Surveys and continued planning in support of the 2022 Blacksmith rehabilitation programme...."
Absolutely no mention of BFS work anywhere and it certainly appears BBIG are trying to extract themselves somehow from responsibilities and our Directors are telling us nothing.
Of course we also saw the State Agreement renewed for a further 18 months and I am disappointed that the WA politicians once again declined to hold the Todd group to account in regard to how they will fulfill their obligations in the next 18 months. The ann in regard renewal states:-
".. until 30 September 2023 for the submission of detailed proposals under clause 11(1) of the State Agreement"
Now of course there are many more clauses in regard to proposals which BBIG must submit as per Clause 11 by the new date of 30/9/23. The main one of interest to us is Clause 11 (5) and just as a reminder this involves submission of the following (in part):-
(5) At the time when the Company submits the last of the said proposals pursuant to this clause, it shall:
(a) furnish to the Minister's reasonable satisfaction evidence of:
(i) the financial capability of the Company to undertake the operations to which the said proposals refer;
(ii) all accreditations under the Rail Safety Act which are required to be held by the Company or any other person for the construction of the SRL Railway;
(iii) the Company having a binding agreement or agreements with the PIOP mining area proponent or proponents (as the case may be) for the transport by the Company upon the Railway to the Port, for not less than 20 years from the Railway Operation Date, of not less than 25 million tonnes in aggregate per annum, commencing from the Railway Operation Date, of iron ore produced, or products derived from iron ore produced by such proponent or proponents, after the date of this Agreement from a project or projects (as the case may be) within the PIOP mining area, which agreement may be conditional upon the grant of the Port Railway Lease and the Special Railway Licence;
(iv) the PIOP mining area proponent(s) being ready to embark upon and to proceed to carry out its or their etc etc
So, the same old question, how will a claimed $60m BFS (min) purported to take 4 or 5 years of which only a small percentage has actually been spent be finalised to meet deadlines? Answer of course -  cannot happen! So what is really going on. We are told negotiations are still continuing in regard the NBIO, but it certainly looks like BBIG have no intention of completing the BFS and agreement in its current form.  I know some here think BBIG can produce a BFS whenever they want however I am more inclined to think they are attempting to renegotiate the agreement to reduce their obligations and then surprise surprise, FMS will need to complete the BFS to satisfy capital funding requirements. I for one hope FMS stay well away from the very highly capital intensive infrastructure project. I know the figures sound like rivers of gold but these projects have many inherent risks and we are better off trying to maximise our return from the IO and leaving the capital risk to those more able to handle the risk and development. Just need to ensure we have a proper supply agreement.  
And to top it all off one of our dedicated Directors in Evan Davies resigned The curious part of that of course is, as a Todd nominee, why they haven't bothered to put another nominee in....hmmmmm
Anyway, the lack of action here is appalling and I would expect OCJ have now seen the folly of their vote on the Infrastructure agreement, or perhaps we will be surprised with a whole new and improved deal! Odds anyone??