is their mine stuffed

I'm speaking from a former shareholder's point of view, so I guess what I'm doing is more of a "post mortem".

I've just taken a look back at their latest financial report, and noticed in particular this paragraph:

"Initial attempts to access the existing LG6 underground workings by company contractors and consultants via #10 shaft and
#12 shaft was unsuccessful due to the presence of water and unstable ground conditions (#10 shaft). As a result, the
decision was made to review alternative start up scenarios."

My interpretation of this is the underground option for the mine was never viable to begin with - the story of them buying an intact mine, with shafts still in place, ready to restart relatively quickly was a furphy because the mine was a dud. They must've found out about this much earlier than when this financial report was released, and it amazes me it wasn't reported when it these unstable ground conditions were encountered. I'm an amateur investor, but heck even I know that when your mine is not viable that'd be pretty price sensitive for a single mine company, especially seeing as we had no reason to believe the mine was dysfunctional in any way.

Does anyone else think they've been mislead by management or is it just me?