You ask yet more questions, the answers to many of which as...

You ask yet more questions, the answers to many of which as previously pointed out can be found in company announcements, particularly the March 7th update on the voluntary suspension.

You ask if the mine manager was terminated and if so why? The announcement clearly states that Mr Villanueva has been served with commencement of a six month notice period. The board undertook a site leadership restructure following a sustained period of under performance.

Isn't this enough for you? What more do you need?

"By all means Jimmy, direct me to the announcement where it specifically states the precise reason WHY the HY23 report was not released to all shareholders."

I have already pointed you to page four of the March 7th announcement. It clearly states that in light of the potential for the operational audit to raise subsequent events pertinent to the financial report, lodgement of the report will be delayed until the audit is either complete or further advanced.

Again, what more do you want the company to say? It seems clear from this that the board (and presumably the auditors agree with this) that the operational audit may result in changed numbers or disclosure of non adjusting events.

I do think it would be wrong to publish HY numbers if there is a significant risk of error and I am guessing this is one of the reasons for the trading suspension per ASX rules. Personally I am not a fan of trading suspensions and think investors should be allowed to buy or sell based on the known information, even though we do not know the outcome of the audit. I could probably get Groundhog to buy my shares for 70 cents each.

Agree that the audit is the effect, not the cause. What is the information that led to the audit? Although not specific the board has stated it has become aware of potential issues in a number of areas, including safety, maintenance, mine performance, procurement and financial management. Once again it is the announcement dated March 7th.

Have you actually read the announcement?

As I have said previously I think it is almost certain the audit will have negative findings, and I am guessing they will be serious. Once the findings are released we will all be able to make our own judgements about how much responsibility the current board should take. I wonder if Vitrinite might be better off waiting until the audit is concluded. When reading the audit report it must be remembered that it is being conducted by internal resources (with the option of calling in outside support if required).

I am not a fan of Vitrinite, but I am a fan of Arbiter. i have spoken to one of their staff in relation to X64 and had a small amount of email correspondence. I know little about Ruffer. However I do know that Arbiter and Ruffer are the two largest shareholders, both being owners prior to Vitrinite coming on board. They are both experienced fund managers who obviously want to look after their investments. That's why I did find it persuasive that Arbiter supported Welker - Arbiter clearly have issues with McGlinn and the current board. It is clear that Ruffer did not vote in favour at last years S249F meeting. Maybe they will vote in favour this time - added to Vitrinite and Arbiter that will take it to 35%, enough to justify board representation - though in my opinion they are not related parties.

No one associated with Vitrinite is on the proposed board which gives me some comfort, but off course the board could try to appoint Welker at a later date.

Not sure which way I will vote at this stage - if the audit comes out before any meeting that will no doubt be a big influence for many people. If the audit is not complete within the next few weeks I think that will count negatively towards the current board.