iva bidding power rises, page-27

bullmarket7...

"Whatever anyone thinks of RF & Ivanhoe they do not, as far as I am aware, have any history of eporting 'questionable' resources; neither for that matter do EXS. By releasing information as they have they also allow each of us to make our own decisions; a lack of disclosure is for me a far greater alarm bell."

With respect...IVA just DID release a 'questionable' resource in my view...difference is they were effectively given tacit approval from the ASX!

In saying it is “questionable”, I am in no way suggesting less than genuine activity on the part of IVA or their geo’s…simply that there are aspects of the statements that in my mind do not fit with JORC.

Pre-JORC drilling and/or mining results, in particular are of concern to me.

In my mind, there are far more "questions" in the IVA resource than any other recently released resources for the region...but as I keep saying, my concern is not about IVA actually announcing the resource they did…good on them I say for getting it out to the market!

Problem for me is that others could announce similar resource statements...but to be perfectly blunt, would be prevented by the ASX from doing so!

How can it be that the parameters of JORC compliance change from company to company? JORC is JORC...and "qualified people" are sanctioned to work within its framework.

What would be your view if the ASX were to ask IVA to quantify their resource envelope against previously mined out areas...on what basis do you think they would determine such things, given they cannot go underground...and have not twinned previous holes?

The previous operator came unstuck due to this very issue...assuming resources were in place that had previously been mined out. Please don’t tell me IVA are not relying on the mining/resource records of a failed venture? Is it not possible they FAILED because their records were not up to scratch?

lol

So...the only way "dead zones" can be removed from the previous resource "inventory" is by IVA referring to the mining records of a the previous operator...a less than best practice, failed organisation, who themselves made significant errors regarding their own resource estimates.

Please tell me…apart from the obvious concerns of comparison…where does any of this satisfy JORC?

Like I keep saying...no issue with IVA...just the less than level playing field regarding who can say what to the markets.

I respectfully suggest, if the same latitude were given to others they would have plenty to say.

IVA is enjoying a $500m or so market cap...based on a resource prepared on parameters other companies are not permitted to include...so why are IVA gaining preferential treatment here?

Are they gaining preferential treatment here?

This is something a little difficult to work out…none the less because IVA did not give us hole location plans and/or collar coordinates...so what is their "inferred" resource based on...50m spacings...100m spacings...200m spacings? How much of it is realistically accessible...and how the hell is the market supposed to know these things?

By the way...nothing wrong with omitting such info in my view...after all, we have a qualified person signing off...but why is it others MUST release such things, are some "qualified people" more “qualified” than others?

lol

IVA are drilling down to 1500m or so...in fact the vast majority of the Mount Elliot resource appears to occur below 800m vertical depth, so referring to metal "inventory" at these depths when only using a 0.25% "Copper Equivalent" cut-off...is in my view, pushing the envelope regarding JORC compliance.

Direct from JORC...

"Portions of a deposit that do not have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction must not be included in a Mineral Resource."

The JORC goes on to suggest...

"Interpretation of the word ‘eventual’ in this context may vary depending on the commodity or mineral involved. For example, for some coal, iron ore, bauxite and other bulk minerals or commodities, it may be reasonable to envisage ‘eventual economic extraction’ as covering time periods in excess of 50 years. However for the majority of
gold deposits, application of the concept would normally be restricted to perhaps 10 to 15 years, and frequently to much shorter periods of time."

With this in mind, here we have IVA suggesting their 0.25% Copper Equivalent resource envelope, the very calculations of which are of themselves very much gold reliant, will be economically extractable at depths of 1000m+ over the next 10-15 years?

I am afraid I cannot come to terms with this...and feel it is reasonable to be somewhat skeptical of the use of terms like "inventory" in discussing such marginal resources at such depths.

Again I add...this is not IVA's problem...and good luck to them for getting it through...but I do have issues with JORC compliance here and the role of ASX in overseeing such things,

The bottom line is this…can we really call such marginal resources "inventory"...and even refer to metal content...when in all likelihood it may well costs more to get out of the ground than what you can eventually sell it for?


One might argue such resources would be more appropriately referred to as "debt inventory"...as mining it any time in the next 20 years will send you broke!

lol

The model for mount Elliot is also interesting...clearly indicating a wide inferred search radius. We obviously have a fair degree of interpolation here, well beyond available data points. JORC requires such details MUST be disclosed to the market with any resource statement...I may have missed it, but I did not see any explanation of extrapolated inclusions and/or their specifics.

By the way...what inferred search radius have they included at these depths...100m...more?

An intersection of say 2m of chalco giving us 3% Cu at these depths, could arguably see an inferred resource of some 3mt at say half the grade...or about 45,000 tonnes of contained Cu metal at this location based on a 100m cube around this single small intersection.

Lol…throw the house on the fact there will not be this much copper at this location!

So many questions in my mind...I don't know where to start?

But like I keep saying...and I know I sound like a broken record here...the resource statement is of itself not the issue for me...and whilst I may seem to be picking on it and/or IVA directly, I am really only picking on the various aspects of the release that I know full well others are prevented from discussing...and I am not only talking about companies in the Cloncurry region!

I find it hard to understand that people really cannot see this...in fact, I see in many posts the impact an uneven playing field has on market perceptions, as evidenced in your assumptions about "questionable resources" and/or "lack of disclosure " from others...how have you assumed this?

Is it fair inconsistencies from the ASX should have such an impact on the market?

What if the ASX were to force a retraction of IVA's resource, due to the non-JORC aspects thereof...would it change the market perceptions somewhat?

So…could I find a "qualified person" who might have reason to question the JORC compliance of the IVA resource statements?

You bet I could!

The bottom line I guess relates to JORC...and/or ASX...and which of these bodies dictates the information flow of JORC compliant statements...as signed off by a qualified person…and the presentation thereof?

For the record...again...I have no problem with the way IVA have calculated their resources...it would be good however if EVERYONE were permitted the same degree of latitude, an argument for which clearly exists with many otherwise un-reported resources around the country.

Cheers!