A lot of speculation here, but these are my thoughts. I think we...

A lot of speculation here, but these are my thoughts.

I think we have a situation where the former MRE, largely inferred was done by a resource estimator more familiar with mineralisation styles in North and South America, however assumptions for the MRE and/or selection of blocks to include in the block model not conservative enough.

Now we have a new MRE done by a resource modeller that is a member Australian Institute of Geoscientists and presumably more familiar with gold deposits in Australia. Perhaps due to less familiarity with this type of intrusive-related deposit perhaps went super-conservative on general assumptions for the modelling as well as selection of blocks to include in the model.

The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle ( i.e. increased number of blocks and less conservative mineral resource model and inputs/parameters).

We have also had a further set of drill data to add to all the underlying assay data loaded into the modelling software.

All this said, I think NVA now have a more conservative starting point in terms of MRE to build on for both planning of future drilling and then future upgrades to the resource. Long terms, this more conservative point going forward is probably a good thing for investors and for all the work needed for PFS.