Mining investment 121, page-141

I agree that to some extend board and management appear to have approached the last two years KPI's in a seemingly disjointed and unplanned manner, however I think that it is silly talk to suggest that their heads should role. IMO I think that they need to get better support around them to assist in coordinating this final phase. Yes , the communication is poor and sometimes the lack of communication is bordering on arrogant and rude. But PB and the current board will have so much IP and corporate history that we cannot afford to have them out of the action. We need to have better clarity on what the current round of 121 conferences is aiming to achieve, why are we there? What is Eddie Fry doing and what are his KPI's? Gresham, what are they doing? they were appointed in Sept 2016 to “Identify debt and equity funding sources” for the Mt Peake operation. Should they be the ones attending these 121 conferences? What are their KPI’s? Is it possible that they have got all the funding for the Mt Peake mine all packaged up and ready to go? Who knows, nobody will report on anything. McMahon Services, are they doing anything? Are we paying them anything? Como Engineers, what are they doing? Are we paying them anything?
Having said all that, it is an absolute disgrace the seeming lack of urgency or focus that is displayed by the bureaucratic agencies that have control of the Red, Green, and Black tape processes. Of course these approvals are important. Of course it is important to have transparent and workable environmental controls and management systems in place. of course a fair and equitable outcome for the TO’s is important. The TO’s have that right, but with those “rights” come responsibilities. I am sure the TO’s family groups fully understand their responsibilities to the wider community, but sometimes I seriously wonder whether some of the people working for them care the slightest bit about those responsibilities.
Australia is becoming a joke regarding the constant focus on the “process” rather than the achievement of the “outcome”
I Think the TNG board have been naive and underestimated the capacity of the bureaucratic “process” to change its culture and get things done and as a result have given timelines that would be considered achievable anywhere else except in Australia.
pop