Is Winchester JORC compliant resource?, page-45

I do think that Korab should address whether they are relying on Mr Uren's work in 2000, or the review of the work by Mr Castle.

The issue is one of disclosure.

If we believe that Korab is relying on the report by Uren in 2000, Korab is relying on information that is now nearly 20 years out of date. They are relying on this information because, viz. nothing has been done that would change that information. This is interesting given the bulk sampling that has occurred post the year 2000 and post 2004. Bulk sampling is a form of assaying, and assaying of a body of mineralisation has the possibility of changing the Modifying Factors and assumptions (upon which KOR's assertions rest).

If we believe Korab is relying upon the review of Uren's work by Mr Castle, this would - in my opinion - require Mr Castle's continued and evinced agreement to continue to use him as a Competent Person in any Table 1 disclosures or disclosures which mentioned any geological information. However, the company would and should have to state that the Resource was or was not calculated by Uren or Castle, as either of these gents may wish to consent (or not) to the manner and nature of the disclosure of the information as presented by Korab.

However, I will remind commentators that there is no JORC standard relating to engineering studies, or the quality thereof. Engineering and economic studies are done by engineers, not geologists. SO don't expect any statement of compliance of the scoping study.

One factor worth keeping in the back of your mind is whether the scoping studies can be relied upon if Korab changes the nature of the proposed mining operation. For example, under the hoped-for outcome of an offtake to profit share on a kiln somewhere to produce Dead Burned Magnesia, this is a significantly different economic situation than a "simple quarry" so, in my opinion at least, a company could not rely on carrying forward economic assumptions and other modifying factors used for a DSO quarry if there is to be a kiln treatment option which contributes to the profitability of the proposed mine. This is because any form of risk sharing between the proponent and the kiln operator would carry different financial risks, cost risks, and would alter the simple financial paramaters of the proposed operation. It also would require another bulk sample, most likely, with metallurgical tests to determine amenability to the kiln process. This would change the modifying factors, and may require restating the Resources in the frame of "what proportion of this rock can be turned into DBM and what proportion cannot".

I don't think KOR's lack of updating the resources would sustain too much more.