Just to add a bit of context for the punters on here on CharlieMunger1's comments , an Indicated resource is one ( using the CIM code from Canada which CharlieMunger1 quoted which closely mirrors the Australasian JORC) ;
Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Pre-Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.
Hence Gln's classification as "indicated" is very appropriate for its stage in the development cycle. The intent will be to upgrade a lot of these indicated resources through further drilling to either a probable or proven reserve as part of the DFS process this year. This will take some of the resources currently classified as "indicated" through into a "measured" resource status which becomes highly likely to qualify as a "Proved" reserve, though once you enter into determining reserves not just a resource you need to apply an extra overlay to the analysis, being economic factors ( mainly costs and yields vs revenue from being processed into a final saleable form) that play the final categorizing role.
From the same CIM code ;
A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured and/or Indicated Mineral Resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted and is defined by studies at pre-feasibility or feasibility level as appropriate that include application of Modifying Factors. Such studies demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction could reasonably be justified. The below diagram shows the relationship between classified resources and reserves.
It should be noted it is not unusual for most mining projects when moving to a finalised DFS and also reporting reserves as well as mineral resources , that a lot of the resource will not be upgraded to a equivalent "proven" reserve. Why ? Because there is a large cost vs ever diminishing risks trade off at play. Mining companies tend to only go to the significant time and cost of further drilling and testing to firm up what is needed as proven reserves to support bank and further equity funding rounds. Beyond that its not worth the extra cost to firm up all probable reserves to proven reserves, or all indicated resources to measured resources.
As an example here is LPI's recent resource and reserve statements from its recently updated DFS statement ;
One can see the measured resources are only 43 % of the total M&I resource. Put differently even at the DFS level, 57 % of LPI's resource remain only at an "indicated" level.
Similarly one can see here the proven reserves are only circa 16 % of the total reserves. The costs of taking all probable reserves up to proven become cost prohibitive as the cost to remove the remaining residual risk in the modelled resource becomes exponentially higher as your seeking to go closer and closer to a very high level of confidence in the data necessary to classify as "proven".
Anyway the point of this post was to simply put some more context on CharlieMunger1's comments.
Yes Gln has a lot more to do de-risk its project, no argument and investors should be cognizant of these risks, but I found his initial comment its not a "measured and indicated" resource, to be misleading as its lacking context. For Gln's stage of development the fact that its resource only sits in the indicated column is not unusual at all. There also must be a high enough level of confidence in the numbers or they couldn't mark them as "indicated" which must be by necessity under the reporting codes be of sufficient quality to support a Pre-Feasibility Study and serve as the basis for major development decisions.
(20min delay)