goodbye "strong result"?, page-24

It is the ponds. The company says so, and the evidence supports it - just check the relationship between quarterly production and high-low evaporation periods. Otherwise they would not be spending money tripling the pond capacity to support slightly more than double the plant capacity. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should report them to the ASX for making deliberately misleading and incorrect statements to the market.

As you are no doubt aware, the company has stated that the primary circuit has demonstrated it can run at a sustained throughput rate equivalent to 19,000 tonnes per year. If you don't believe this either, report your evidence to the ASX. The purification circuit has been more problematic, but has been able to run at nameplate at least for short periods, notwithstanding that there have been modifications/enhancements to both circuits as well as pond infrastructure since the plant began operating. By now they will have a very good understanding of the performance of the

To be fair, the company was also in denial about the pond issue, believing that the issue was unseasonal weather and/or errors in pond management algorithms. Their action in sizing the Stage 2 ponds is proof that they now understand that pond capacity is the main issue that needed to be addressed.