let's be clear here, I try very hard to be objective and avoid any type of ramping.
I also spend a lot of time reading and understanding the opportunities and risks.
The only reason I can be so critical in my assessment of Chris and the board is because of the hundreds of hours of research I've done.
Previously there was only speculation from people talking doom and gloom, and very few facts.
We were led to believe that all of the projects were in a healthy state with major near term milestones.
I appreciate that things change, and delays happen, but for the company to go from 4 viable, company making projects to one in the space of 28 days is a catastrophic failure on behalf of the board and management.
The reason for two projects falling over was "a failure to meet acceptable terms".
The exact reasons for "terms not being mutually agreeable" will likely never be disclosed to holders, but I'm not convinced the expectations of the counter party wouldn't have been expressed quite early on.
I'd love to hear from Chris how shelving projects and potentially selling them in a fire sale is more acceptable than raising funds and generating near term revenues?
Money is still being invested globally in compelling projects. Macro sentiment and conditions are down, but cash rates whilst high, aren't at historical highs.
No one has so far been able to dispel any of the things I've posted, and I believe there's more pain to come, unless a possible buyer for the VRP is made that will deliver a significantly reduced return on investment should the company have raised funds and progressed the projects.
Let me be clear, the VRP was our best and fastest path to production given all of the work that has been done (off take, loan guarantees, supply agreements etc)
~550m shares on issue isn't that many.
The board could have raised at a much higher price a year ago, and they could have raised at 2x the current share price only 2 months ago.
A $50m raise at $0.50c would have added 100m shares to the register, but it could have potentially guaranteed the project would have gone ahead, and the company would have been making money in the next XX months (years).
Investors are ultimately responsible for their decisions, but we base our decisions on what we are told by management.
Chris and the board deserve the upper cuts, not investors who had (what appears to be) half truths and selective disclosures.
Expand
