Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-165

Greenback25. I reckon that you couldn't have come up with a greater understatement about "out for a quick buck."
You said "any of us" but I reckon that there are hundreds of "newbies" who bought into LNY who would LOVE to get out just to get their money back and we will see that happen very quickly if there is an announcement spike re either the ML or the NZ results.
As for the older LT's, well, NONE of those who have been in since the Renison days could be considered as being after a quick buck. They are down up to 98% on their original investment and unless they have topped up into LNY, they will probably never ever even see a "slow" buck as a profit. Many of those, also, will probably just grab any spike and run and those that have topped up in LNY will probably dump some into any spike, just to cut their huge losses from Renison.

So, my humble view is that the rest of your summary, or dream, is very likely to be very accurate as far as time lines are concerned.
Now in support of your NZ dream, this is a relevant part of the USB Global latest assessment on OGC dated 23 Feb 2018.

Q: Can the NZ assets deliver a mine life beyond 5 years?
Waihi has an underground reserve of 1.1Mt, which implies a 2 year mine life. But a much larger
resource of 2.9Mt and a track record of resource discovery, suggests Waihi will continue to have a
2 year mine life in 2 years time. Open pit-able material could provide further upside, but is
dependent on permitting.

IMO, OGC would dearly love to expand its production in NZ given the huge investment that it has made there. Definitely pencil in OGC involvement in LNY IF drill results prove positive!!!

Also, IMO, LNY will never operate either Ashford or NZ and effectively, Agate Creek. Management are not miners and will just have someone in an observers role.

Just incidentally, a ML for LNY's property at Agate Creek "should" be one of the simplest and least complex of ANY application ever lodged with DNRM. I have been assured by the person at the EAO heading the application process for the TOs that the proposed mine has absolutely no impact whatsoever on any sacred sites and certainly no environmental threats with the type of "mining" and the proposed milling to be done off property.
IMO, this application should have been finalized immediately after the actual owners compensation settlement was reached. Probably academic now that Dugsab is still of the opinion that the EOPL mill is the problem.

Sadly, I believe that for the vast majority of shareholders this has long ceased being a dream and has, unfortunately, become a rather frustrating nightmare and I've got a good idea who should be blamed. Quite a paradox.