The article seems mostly focused on three things:- the lack of a...

The article seems mostly focused on three things:
- the lack of a BFS
- discrepancies between production projections before cap raising vs reality after
- termination of services of a contractor not being disclosed


* The BFS is only relevant for the purchase of the remaining 10% and/or co-contributions. The company had been referring to a BFS but recently clarified it needs to be updated to appropriate JORC code requirements to be correctly called a BFS. They are no longer referring to it as such and have indicated they will update it to be compliant over coming months.

Production targets given before the cap raising were missed. The 100 tonnes per day haulage wasn’t achieved - they had mined ore but due to the zig zag couldn’t get it to surface at the required rate. This was reported on in October as per disclosure requirements. The share price suffered accordingly. That report indicated mining was continuing at 100 tpd which is semantically different to haulage of 100 tpd.  They’ve subsequently sorted out the zig zag bypass and production and haulage have ramped up back In line with projections by the looks of more recent production reports.

Missing production targets is a pretty common theme in mining startups.  Whether they terminated services of a mining contractor and how that needs to be disclosed depends on whether it’s considered price sensitive. They don’t need to report every operational detail.