So changes in remuneration are in order to save money in the...

So changes in remuneration are in order to save money in the short-term with the possible downside (for us shareholders) of higher remuneration in the future, right?
How are we going to achieve a short-term savings goal when calling the meeting will mean costs for us shareholders? Wouldn't it be better to try to achieve saving remuneration on a voluntary basis before requesting an EGM?
And where to cut and by how much?
Non-executive directors, where remunerations was ca. $300,000?
"Executives", where remuneration was $1,685,000?
Considering more than half of remuneration of "executives" goes to individuals in Guyana who could be considered to be hired consultants as well, wouldn't that involve the risk of them leaving?
Can Troy do without e.g. Eric Olson, someone who fixed a lot of projects and will have ample opportunity to work elsewhere?
Can Troy do without the finance and administration manager in Guyana? What would happen with trade creditors in Guyana if he leaves?
Is making a 20% cut going to make a difference over the next 9 months? That would be a saving in costs of $300,000.
Would postponing 50% of remuneration for 6 months make a difference? $500,000. Without knowing details within Troy, what if someone like Ken already postponed part of remuneration in times of need and is a creditor already? What if Troy announced there was remuneration payments postponed, would this increase shareholders trust in the company or seem like a last-ditch effort? How do we make sure someone worrying about remuneration payments on top of worrying about operations is doing a good job?