Understand your frustration, I think we all feel it.
Like to add some of my thinkings, re heavy rains, once bitten twice shy.
From Stu's photos (Thxs for them, much apprec), I see some progress in respect of the last winter rain events, etc.:
1. The ROM is/has been expanded. A little to the east and much more so to the west. So from an initial say 80-90kt potential storage of ore, say 1 month of operation (my guess only), can be increased to 150kt+, giving say 2 months potential operation over winter. Does not solve any future issues, but mitigates some risk of repeat of rainfall events effecting the pit.
2. Next to the mine dam, looks like another small dam is being constructed. I would hope / guess is a "floc dam". Overflow from mine pit or sedimentation dam with SS (suspended solids, muddy waters) can pass thro' and a coagulent added. Should settle out the fines / clays in suspension leaving clear water for off-site disposal. Also of concern is BOD (not board of directors but Bacterialogical Oxygen Demand) basically organics in water (leaf litter, microbes, etc) which when fed with say nitrates (the ammonia in ANFO - the explosive in the pit, which seems to have been issue last rainy season) the bugs multiply and suck out the oxygen in the water (aka Minidee Lake fish kill - low river water levels, algal blooms suck out oxygen, kills fish). A big NO NO to dispose of this in barra country. To overcome this, either oxygenate or dispose in flowing waters thus diluting problem, this could occur in rainy season but not with muddy waters.
So hopefully issues with pit water (dissolved ANFO) can be mitigated in future rainy season. Again, just a guess I have no further info, or fact, etc.
3. Following the Dec / Jan rain events, I believe has been a change in mine pit opening/operation strategy, most likely forced upon. The Grants pit has a mine life of approx 3 years. With Stage 1 (remove 6M m3 of overburden) access pegmatite with Li, mine and then expand pit via Stage 2 (again about 6M m3 overburden removal). If 3 year life, could expect Stage 1 life of say 1-1+ years. My thinking was mine Stage 1 and slowly work on Stage 2 overburden removal in 1st year. Like Hare and Tortoise race, be like the tortoise. From Stus pics, I think that strategy has changed to 'be the hare'. The pit is expanded, at surface to full width, and at least in the southern portion is at depth, 30m, 35, 40m ??, but been worked on to expose the unweathered pegmatite with the Li ore. The southern portion of the waste rock stockpile has shape and a lot of effort / resources going into this. Once at appropriate Li ore depth now have a "fully" exposed vein of Li ore.
Pros and cons? Pros - now fully exposed can say divide into 3 sections, first third can drill, prepare for explosives and blast, second third can excavate blasted ore to ROM, final third for excess rock on either side of vein to waste stockpile. Can get some sort of rhythm in extracting ore, by cycling over the thirds with each section worked simultaneously (except when actual blasting), versus a smaller footprint in say Stage 1 only where have to say do it sequentially in tighter working area. This approach may also enable smaller surface area and possibly shallower blasting areas = lower amounts of explosive used per blast (Now just my theory, but, a 'big boom' will generate a large blast wave and for pit walls that may be soaked / saturated could start a pit wall slip/collapse, ie the pit ramp failure?) Also, the larger bottom of pit footprint should also allow for some sort of drainage plan to remove water in rain events, ie water to flow to a small collector and pump it out. Also opportunity to better build the final pit ramp and pit walls, learn from previous pit wall failures, etc. and put in place say a better slope stability angle (if needed), etc. Finally, may/should allow for a larger overall extraction rate / day from the pit. Cons - moving the Stage 2 overburden will affect actual first planned production & impact commissioning of DMS, resources need for this overburden removal, however, with issues from last rainy season someone had to decide are we tortoise or hare?
Again just my take on things, highly likely wrong. But I can see "now" actions to overcome the past issues, light at the end of the tunnel. Am happy? No, but what happened, happened. Can I aportion blame? Yes. Firstly, to the 'main man' in charge of the weather, not much can do about that / him. Core management? Yes, some. Take the surface water management issue, as example.
In the engineering asset (the mine) creation process there is a set, proven path.
1. Planning / concept (or say PFS, Preliminary Feasibility Study). So a surface water management plan would be prepared, say by a consultant. The first design assumption would be for a rainfall event, say 1:50 year event. Calculated, designed for with collector drains, sedimentation dams, release points, monitoring points, etc., a glossy report written. This is submitted to NT Dept of water / rivers or EPA and given tick with conditions (of looks good, but your problem if pollute will be fined, etc..)
2. Definition phase (or say DFS, Definitive Feasibility Study). At this phase the issue is re-looked at with more detail, for example, yes previous work for 1:50 rain event, but what happens if have a 1:10 event on a Monday, a 1:3 event on Thursday and then the 1:50 event on a Sunday, what are the risks of..., how do we manage, how to mitigate, etc..
(In an "Engineered Company" this would be done in-house. A Senior Project Engineer would be overseeing, and his responsibility to over-see, determine the what if scenarios, manage risk, mitigate, etc. In a "Junior Mining Company", likely overseen by Project Manager, an on time, on budget, go go go view of things, and things get overlooked. From my experience seen it so many times, been involved in it (usually from a trying to fix the problems angle
)
3. Details design (or say FEED, front end engineering design) phase. The actual details, drawings, etc..
(Again in an "Engineered Company" done in-house or heavily supervised, and in a "Junior Mining Company" out it goes as a design and construct contract, = move the risk to the contractor, and pay for it in contractual price.)
My point is that, and it is not my intention to "point the finger" at anyone, it is just the way it works, when junior companies have to have the asset up and running, when their survival is paramount. My guess is that Core is not alone in this scenario.
Now the current CEO is from RIO, say an "Engineered Company", and I feel some relief that a transition in culture is happening, from explorer to producer status, it will be a long hard slog. One of the October 2022 CR aims was "Corporate Initiatives" to bring in-house more management and design. Need to have the patience for this to occur, so yes have frustrations, but as I said earlier I see some light at the end of the tunnel. I suppose the unanswered question is: How much of your dirty laundry do you hang out to dry in public?
Again just IMHO, and my two cents worth for what its worth. Could go on but think enough dribble for one session.
Go Core Go. FY24 will be the year.
