jv with palace resources , page-12

largely agree with you there fatguts, with a few exceptions

The 'nugget effect' makes this resource very hard to quantify with certainty without a massive and expensive close space drill program to prove (beyond doubt) continuity of mineralisation. I have seen the same sort of thing happen with the Cudeco resource and its issues with native copper and the JORC code.
This problem imo is what led srk to make a very conservative assesment in order to cover their butts.
However, this 'problem' does not apply to the bulk of the Juno downgrade which was largely a result of "missing data" that eventually showed that some areas thought not to have been mined were in fact mined by previous operators.
It is my belief that the downgrade to the rest of the resource was an unnecessary knee jerk reaction by the independant resource analysts.

Having said all that i believe there is far more gold at TC than the JORC reflects and indeed i think that if the previous operators had to "prove" the resource to the level that is currently required it probably would not have been mined.
There in lies the problem, to "prove up" the resource would be a very expensive exercise (particularly at Juno and M10 due to depth) and in this day and age no one would provide funding for an unproven mine with no BFS etc, not to mention the difficulties that may arise in the EIS and ML application stages.

IMO EXM needs to turn away from the big prize atm and concentrate on the shallower resources such as Nobles Nob and accelerate these prospects to a position where they can be mined, the cashflow from which could finance the proving up of further resources.

The current review seems to be just a rehash of old data which imo is already a known and i cant see how it will impact in any way on the resource as it stands, other than to perhaps generate new targets or to prioritise known targets.