why cdu has to be a lt investment, page-25

seedy ewe
most companies will transition their resource model from the sort of one cdu now has, to a closer spaced grade control model. some companies drill close enough to be happy with the first one and cdu may be one of them.
there is nothing to stop cdu using a fudge factor and bumping up their in-house prediction. They only have to convince themselves and their major investors that is the way to go.

It is quite unusual and very risky to rely on the likelihood of a thoroughly understated resource. If they are wrong it will bite big time - overestimation of nuggety metal has sent many a company broke. It is true that this can go the other way, but where is this likely to be? throughout the whole resource or only some local zones?
When underestimation associated with high nugget is the case, a lot more metal ends up on the waste dump, which is arguably a worse outcome.

It is interesting, that they use a top cut to restrict the high values they HAVE recovered yet speculate to the opposite effect with all the magical disappearing values.
It is also interesting they have gone to a globally unbiased linear method (ordinary kriging) whilst it is the local detail they speculate on. I think they did use an non-linear MIK (multi indicator kriging) model at some stage, which would deal with local detail and extreme values better and also offer built in conditional probability, so it is interesting they didn't continue with it. Was the theoretically better estimate too low?
something else to consider, is that the CuEquiv is not a metal - that is any underestimate of copper only affects the copper component of the calculation. So all this speculation, how much of the resource does it affect?

In all honesty, from what I've read and heard, a lot of the statements seem a little coy and far more speculative than they should need to be...but that's just my view.