Agree completely with your comments around SP etc and with this being somewhat of a formality, albeit an important one to tick off.
Also, just to add to the point re the estimation contractor - the CP for the resource estimation in this case is Lynn Widenbar (principal of Widenbar and Associates) who has also been involved in the more recent MRE updates for HAS – i.e. HAS previously utilised Gill Lane Consulting.
The recent HAS MRE update (with Widenbar as CP) included a brief statement on the MRE categories: As a general rule, the following spacings characterise the Mineral Resource classification. • Infill drilling between 20m by 20m and 35m by 35m – Measured Category • Drill spacing up to 50m by 50m – Indicated Category • Drill spacing 100m by 50m to 100m by 100m – Inferred Category
I had the same query re the inferred category choice – but after looking at the HAS statement and given both estimates are by the same group my assumption is the decision to put all the YIN MRE into inferred is primarily based on the along strike drilling density. With most of the 3km strike at Yin being drilled on 100m sections, despite the ‘on-section’ drill density.That would be my take on it now anyway. But I agree it still doesn’t completely explain why the 50m infilled area hasn’t passed the bar to make it into indicated. The only other significant difference I can see between the two is that there is no compositing at HAS, its all done on 1m assay intervals vs at Yin there has been some compositing of 3m assay intervals…so potentially if that is within the 50m infill area then it could have lowered the confidence slightly?
DRE Price at posting:
9.6¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)