@mulac1 ... Those words do indeed occur in all the announcements you mention. Now why would they if it was not an accurate interpretation of reality??
They don't need the metallurgical testing from Canada to report a JORC resource, they need the metallurgicals to report an ore reserve as part of a feasibility study. A scoping study is not of the confidence level to report ore reserves..
This from the ASX guideline on scoping studies...
"Clause 38 of the JORC code defines a ‘scoping study’ as:
… an order of magnitude technical and economic study of the potential viability of Mineral Resources. It includes appropriate assessments of realistically assumed Modifying Factors together with any other relevant operational factors that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that progress to a Pre-Feasibility Study can be reasonably justified."
https://www2.asx.com.au/content/dam...-reporting-scoping-studies-with-checklist.pdfAlso from Clause 38...
"
A Scoping Study must not be used as the basis for estimation of Ore Reserves"
So they can't use the excuse of trying to declare an ore reserve as the reason for not declaring a resource, as they are only doing a SS.
The metallurgical testing is done to test the viability of mineral resources, yet the company keeps stating in announcements that the current drilling is not sufficient for a mineral resource!!
They completed the 'resource drillout' of Stricklands last year, but failed to release a resource estimate, despite having all the information necessary. So yes, I'd be taking the company on their own words of having insufficient to declare a JORC resource, but others will believe whatever they want to believe.
Could people please familiarise themselves with the JORC2012 code, as it is what the exploration industry MUST follow according to listing rules..
http://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf
(20min delay)