Yeah, nah.
As I posted elsewhere, that's not how it works.
A competent and experience consult a) knows the ins and outs of the approvals process like the back of his hand b) has the pre-existing relationship with officers within the EPA, so is able to ask *exactly* what is being looked for, what the red-flag issues are and what the touch points are that EPA bosses want to see addressed and c) ensures there is an on-going dialog before the draft goes in, during review, and afterwards when the final doc is being prepared.
I have been there with this. I have seen it first hand. I have been the PM moaning loudly at the $80k fees for pointless studies that don't give me the result I want - but that a tame consultant has asked to be carefully re-drafted so they tick the boxes needed - and then seen the EPA, WAPC et al, pass the plans through in the allotted 6 weeks when crunch time came.
The whole "the rules changed after we submitted the draft" whinge is a red herring. Rules change; deal with it. It was only a draft they submitted. If VRX submitted the final report before the change, hey presto! But they didn't. As someone else opined, it smacks of a useless consultant who was unaware the rules were about to change. This *does not* happen over the weekend with Government agencies - they mull crap like that for months, and signal it to the industry.
I am also not buying the line that Comms were "restricted". VRX are free to be able to update the market on progress and to filter confidential information as they see fit. They chose not to, even as the share price halved.
The other thing my bulls*t meter went into overdrive over was the "we were told if we reduce the A/N footprint we wouldn't need to do the full enviro submission". If that truly was the case, then when they were told they *would* have to do the full enviro submission, why not revert back to a submission including the full lease footprint? If you are doing some digging
@carnabombers, take a look at the timelines around the original EPA submission, the date of the decision by EPA to asses, and then the date the submission area was scaled back... does that story add up?
Honestly, I'm glad there is an upswing in sentiment. I still hold my full swag of shares here. I believe in the resource, and the opportunity. But it will take more than a one hour re-do of a train wreck AGM to convince me that this ship has been steadied and is riding above the swell, not wallowing in it. The proof for me will be in the actions - and announcements - we see in the next 12 months.
TL/DR: The BoD can blame the EPA all they want, but EPA is gonna EPA, and both VRX and Bamford should have known that.
(20min delay)