Ann: Maiden Drilling Program Commences at Discus Copper Prospect, page-33

Plough, I did my own due diligence and the actual numbers are from the financial statements. The cost for Harte was pre-takeover and, yes, they are one example where the forecast costs were well below actual.

You cannot draw accurate stope outlines on the basis of exploration/delineation drilling. That type of drilling is adequate for resource estimation, but for stope design you need a much denser pattern. Not doing so will cost you dearly in terms of excessive waste mined.
The shoot at Antler varies sharply over short distances and there are areas where the massive sulphide splits in the several horizons. There are large blocks where the combined width is such that Longhole Open Stoping will work well, but there are many areas where it is much narrower and probably variable in attitude (NWC never provided decent cross sections, which is a concern, why did they not?).

Not sure what you are after with the question about dilution and JORC equivalent. By definition reserves include dilution. According to NWR, included the mineable inventory of the second scoping study of 15.4 Mt is 4.8 Mt of waste, meaning that 10.6 Mt resources are includes, which is 0.84 Mt less than total declared resources of 11.44 Mt. The difference equates to 7.3% of total resources not captured due to mining losses and design considerations. Given that dilution is defined as waste / (waste + ore), the dilution rate is in excess of 31% (= 4.8 Mt /15.4 Mt). This is also apparent from the drop in grade from resources to mineable inventory, which varies between 34% (for Pb) to 32% (Cu).
It means the plant will have to treat almost 46% more rock than if dilution would be zero. In my opinion a mining method with better control over dilution would be very advantageous, even if it less productive (= requiring more working places for the same production rate) than Longhole Open Stoping.

Figure 9.3 is from a draft report I wrote on the benchmarking exercise.