Mentalist123, page-10

I'm in camp, scoping , pfs, BFs DFS, wouldn't really have changed too much. the differences between the varying reports is the level of accuracy and confidence in physical and financial outcomes. scoping should be say +\- 20-30% ..
so yes, perhaps more drilling or confidence around the resource prior to starting would have improved the confidence in the outcome .

but the big issue here is... even off a scoping study, the board and management completely F'ed it. planning, grade control, mining, processing, cash flow and working capital management, this wasn't just a 20-30 % variation.

also remember... bm took over when the resource had already been generated and Mining had started. so block model, mine plans done... previous management generated the resource and "reserve" . wouldn't be the first time a probable or inferred resource was dressed up or pushed into indicated or measured categories. trouble is after this happens, shades of grey over time start to become "facts" and nobody goes back and checks.

it would be interesting to get hold of the independent geological report on the resource if there was one. it would be interesting to reconcile the as mined against the block model then reconcile against processed material assays head grade etc.. see how much dilution, grade variance to block model , mined recovery etc etc

I wouldnt be surprised if the previous management cooked the books on this, the next incompetent management group then didnt have the experience to check and made a cooked up resource even worse. dumb and dumber ...

that's my take anyways. it's been fun. a perceived quick in and out mid last year opportunity has been an interesting ride to say the least. honestly didn't think board and management could F up the opportunity when they bought Lorena mill that badly. tba real proof that they could...