Was I wrong?

Friends,
after a careful reread of the audited statutory financial statements, I am conflicted and wonder if my earlier cynicism was misplaced.

When I originally read the report I did notice a distinct change in prose style which was much simpler and more direct - lacking the apparent obfuscation characteristic of earlier reports.

My initial conditioned reaction was to dismiss it as a say nothing, can't be held to account strategy. But I now wonder if it was more like "if I told you I would have to shoot you."

Let me explain, and then let me know what you think, I need more insight to decide if I hold or run.

"Production is planned for 2015."  Unambiguous, but could mean anything from January 1 to December 31 - so is it commitment, or wriggle room.

"The schedule and timetable of development of these technologies is to complete in 2014 construction and commissioning of the Newcastle Iron Recovery Plant ... " Clumsy grammar aside, there is no wriggle room here, the plant is finished and commissioned by 31 December 2014. But I seem to remember commissioning takes 3 months post construction, so the plant should be built now - where is the announcement.

"In 2014 negotiations continued with international groups for the development of the next technology for production of synthetic rutile employing the ERMS technology." The key here is negotiations are for rutile / ERMS at a time when the NIRP seems to be stalled and with no finance to finish it. How could they get any international group interested in the next dream technology when they have so apparently failed to complete the first? Therefore I must question my assumption that the NIRP is hopelessly stalled.

"Following the completion of construction and commissioning of the Newcastle Iron Recovery Plant, Austpac will progress with technology licenses to the steel and related industries for use of the technologies utilized at the Newcastle plant." We know this has always been the dream, but I sense this is talking of a done deal - the "if I told you I would have to shoot you bit."

And then the sealer that I don't ever recall seeing before in any annual report - "The company does not have a Directors’ and Officers’ insurance against liability which may arise from holding the position of Director or
Officer." This means if the foregoing is lies and the Directors get sued they have no protection, they are personally liable. I understand it as a money saving measure in the circumstances. It should mean a very conservative report with substantial wriggle room, but that is not what we have. So is this statement their way of telling us that they really mean it this time.

As you see, I am conflicted. What do others think? Can they, or have they, just pulled it off?