In all the noise, this is the core q, right here. Whilst nobody wanted to see it, we were being told things were not quite hunky dory. Therefore it was well known locally some things were problematic. Some of that would have been put on the failing contractor to fix and some would be saddled on the start-up. Obviously missed / incomplete scope, and any of those attempts to blame the contractor when it was operation outside of advised use cases (ie the contractor squirmed their way out of it), are coming home to roost.
When would a well run start-up know it needed a CR to finish the project off? These annoying seal failure breakdowns started happening, they were supposed to get fixed. The DMU's kept stuffing up when the supplier said they should be good for the job, probably having a go at blaming the contractor themselves. The niggling tailings problem needed a solution. Initially, there would be a reasonable mgt view that cashflow could deal with a fair bit, until it couldn't, so a bit of a rolling event horizon. When exactly in this mess would be the trigger point for acting with strength? When some version of reading the riot act on the consequences of the real situation happened. Then pull up the big girl pants and get on with fixing it properly, given procrastination is no longer an option. Taking 6 months to get to there is eminently reasonable in my experience. Plus I guess it takes a month to set up and ann a CR.
Also remembering these guys are in the middle of a desert surrounded by a couple of holiday villages and not much else; everything takes a while to become properly evident as to how it is going to happen, and get it done. So perspective comes into it. Were we diddled in the way Princess one and Precious two would have us believe? Messaging could and should have been more forthright, but that is just ego and bad luck pushing timing out a little, not direct malfeasance.
The more I think about it, I am thinking the scenario we now see is not anything more than a disappointing and annoying fact of life. It happened, everyone learnt something, and will get on with the next chapter (the fix!). When doing those oh-so-critical risk studies, what we see here is termed 'latent risk'. The fault was always there and remained undiscovered for all the reasons why. Flushing this stuff out before it goes to site is a big job that takes a lot of very experienced heads. If that luxury is not available it doesn't change the factual discovery, just adds to the costs of rectification. Hardly surprising that a few got away before STA finally got the engineering resources in house (which we know from the regular advts reported on) to handle it. Which that team will.
Hey, here's another perspective - I was very involved in Ok Tedi's crusher replacement project a few years ago, on a very well set up and serviced site, and I gotta say STA still gets 5 gold stars compared to that one, which is now working just fine, after their mostly self-inflicted teething problems! Here, we are dealing with some irksome bruising, not missing limbs...
For me, this is the first start-up I have followed closely fully through the journey, with a fair bit of skin in the game, and it is quite the fascinating experience. The emotional roller-coaster that some are going through and gifting their hard-earned to others, in a ball of fury. Wow eh. Not sure if that makes me a died-in-the-wool upramper, an eternal optimist, or just a rational analytical human being looking at events through the prism of life experiences. Probably all three! Chill. Be patient. Enjoy...
"... wow, doesn't get much more insensitive than that, lot of people deep under water, even those buying low 20's last week. You keep popping those happy pills, obviously working great.
(20min delay)