Having a modest LT holding in TNG since around April 2016, I am...

Having a modest LT holding in TNG since around April 2016, I am certainly not in the league of many others on HC, in terms of quantity or time held. During that time, I have followed TNG's progress on Mt Peake. Yes progress, albeit excruciatingly slow at times and sometimes with backward steps, has over that time been made.

During the same period, I had holdings in other mining explorers/developers eg in PLS, CXO, BGS and followed their progress, also often slow and with backwards steps. In particular, I followed the rise, fall then rise again of PLS. During their "fall" between early 2018 to late 2019, I also recall the howls of protest from many on HC whenever the inevitable CR's came along, or when spodumene prices crashed or when offtakers stopped taking product or some other perceived blunder calling for KB's resignation often calling into question KB's prior involvement with Atlas Iron during it's struggles, and offering that as further justification. Early 2020, pre-COVID, around 18 months after production and the SP had gone from $1 to circa 28cps more howls. 2.5 years later I think most of the howling has stopped and regardless, KB has moved on having persisted through to PLS's success.

For me, it is not helpful as a SH to only focus on apparent missteps, delays and mistakes in exclusion to all other positive events and only use that as a basis for a decision to hold or not. It is the totality, the sum of all actions that can be verified by way of company announcements or other reliable, accurate information.

Do I wish it had all gone quicker? Yes. Was I critical of PB's stewardship? Yes, at times I almost divested TNG for other opportunities, until a "cooler headed" analysis suggested otherwise.

The recent letters of interest/support for A$800M in funding, of course with conditions, is not a trivial accomplishment. I don't see those organisations even expressing interest in becoming involved unless they had carried out their due diligence and satisfied themselves on the merits of the project, it's development and the company's ability to achieve it. I am concerned that PB mentioned he had also been expecting NAIF funding as well, but this has apparently been sidelined by the current 249D. What else has been "sidelined"?

On balance, I am most concerned with a 3 to 6 month delay now, when some momentum appeared to be occurring, while a new management team gets up to speed and plots their new course for progress.

I am also wary that the CMT's short term focus is geared more towards improving perceptions of the company with the goal of achieving a SP rerate to support funding initiatives. I would prefer the focus remain on more "tangible" items such as Clough's "binding fixed-price, lump sum EPC proposal" and finalising EPA submissions to progress approvals, as these will likely assist with achieving some of the funding conditions along with a SP rerate.

AIMHO