The irony of the delays is that they didn't need to be delays....

The irony of the delays is that they didn't need to be delays. The amount of time it's taken from being awarded the project as manager, carrying out environmental studies, securing the mining licence, going through all the field trials testing various phosphate products, completing the DFS, changing the product because of the high cost and low availability of MAP for blending, negotiating an offtake and part of the balance of the funding, has actually not been bad relative to most mining projects. They should still be going from being awarded the project to production in around four years. If they just went more conservative on timelines, we might not be discussing delays. Only problem with that is that us investors want everything ASAP so that's what some managers might feel compelled to try and give us. I guess without giving us that, it would have been more difficult to raise the cash they did at the price they did to get us here with the least possible dilution. I'm not implying they intentionally lied about timelines but they seem to have gone with announcing the best possible scenarios rather than the worst for timeframes.
Whatever the case, I don't think it's taken too long to get to here. These things do take time. Four years doesn't seem excessive to me at all.
So these red flags some talk of regarding delays wouldn't exist if we were given more realistic timeframes in the first place.