Tangs, we've done this before. I know about resource estimations. You clearly do not. You are flat out wrong. Particularly on the top cut issue, and you should give that up. Non-linear metal distributions (most gold deposits) require different estimations and the newer techniques (MIK) have been developed for exactly that reason. Tampia style deposits are classic examples of where it's needed.
A basic very outline of the technique used is available here:
https://geostatisticslessons.com/lessons/mikoverviewFrom the top: (1) manage highly variable natural phenomena
without cutting high values or nonlinear transformation...
Yes, the RMS estimation is coarser, clunkier and more conservative. The wider widths can be because they can't mine with the finesse that Explaurum assumed, and that might be valid, but does not change the gold distribution.
All those variations mean that more ore sits in the lower grade part of the estimation which does not make the cut for trucking, but could for on-site treatment.
RMS (and most others) are always conservative. They either do it deliberately, or they are incompetent. I know RMS are not incompetent at that level. It's risk reduction. They don't want to take any risk of under performing. So they add "what ifs" into their forecasts to lower the risk or underperforming. That is not necessarily a bad thing, and when it comes to production forecasting, it's appropriate. It's not when it comes to estimating resources.
You might not want to accept the way these things are done, but there's easy ways to think about it. Every time any resource
mined by anyone comes up with more (or less) Oz than the resource said was there, there is really only one option (I was going to say 2, but really it's just one). They estimated (or reported) the incorrect number.
If they optimise a pit on a conservative resource, it produces a less than optimal pit. With a price rise, they will be mining an even more sub-optimal pit (losing more profit). If they are going to make the most profit possible, they have to optimise the pit given the best available information. Not a conservative resource, the best one. Using a conservative value cuts risk (which is why they do it) but does not give the best outcome. The risk should be added later, not at the resource estimation stage. That should be as close to reality as the available information makes possible.
So, feel free to clap over-performers on the back, but don't kid yourself.
(20min delay)