Today's announcement that the resource assessment has been referred to a third party means that the tote needs to be adjusted. Previously I posted that news of a VALID indicated resource has odds of 1%, a revised and better substantiated inferred resource is at 79% and the odds that the data is used only to support an exploration target is at 20%.
So the question is; who is requiring the veracity of the resource to be assessed by an "independent mineral consultancy group"? IMO, it can only be the ASX. The company's gem geo, who's the technical arm of their team, has been with them for ages; singularly signs off on all statements; and fulfills the role of competency as required by the JORC code. As far as I'm aware this current action is unprecedented on the ASX, at least since I have been actively following all explorers. There are no formulated criteria or triggers for referring technical statements outside of companies.
So that makes QBL a 1/1000 stock. Which brings me back to the tote.
After considering today's news I now put the odds of an independently indicated resource at 0.1% (1:1000). No where has the company described a grid sampling program that would be required for an indicated resource, with consideration to the variability of the known data around very sensitive cut-offs, which have yet to be fully substantiated (IMO). I now put the odds of a beefed up inferred resource at 59.9% (i.e. what V.1. should have been if they did it correctly), and the odds of no resource, but a solid exploration target at 40%. It is hard to perceive any "independent" consultant prescribed by the ASX would risk credibility, given the potential for scrutiny.
I also note that my joke about a conveyor seems to have been taken seriously by more than 1 in 1000 posters. A probability defying event there. Additionally, more than 1 in 1000 posters believe that tenement approvals are decided by farmers, there is no tourism in the area (Paronella Pk, anyone?), containment of low repeat frequency storm events is not an issue, and there are no potential off lease impacts. Again I state I'm not going to make any sensible comment on those matters as the company has not applied for a lease yet, and the first priority is to announce a resource to the market and substantiate it properly.
Curiously and perhaps coincidentally, it seems that on this thread one downramping post receives 1000 replies in return, mostly just to discuss the downramping.
Lastly, the chances of me not moving from here in the next day or two to avoid getting stranded by a pending natural disaster is about 1 in 1000. I just hope the probabilities for loss of life and livelihood is much lower again. So again the uprampers will receive more respite, at least from this downramper.
