Following up on my post above, as i forgot to discuss percentage...

Following up on my post above, as i forgot to discuss percentage of resource which is likely to be upgraded to m&i

Yes I have seen Wombats peer analysis, and it is a great point to make.

The main determining variables on whether a block in a resource model is reported as inferred or indicated/measured is 1) distance to a sample 2) usually some kind of statically measurement of continuity based on the estimation 3) geologic uncertainty

Point 1 is probably the most important and is easy to analysis. in the case of Korbel, we have fan shaped drill patterns, This means samples between holes will be close near the surface at the pads, but quickly the samples become farther apart. This does have implications for what parts of the pore shells are likely to be considered for a resource upgrade - probably only the first 50-100m and just below each of the pads. (just a guess here). What were the drill hole spacing and drill hole design of the peers we are comparing to that were able to achieve 60+% upgrade?

Points 2 and 3 are extremally variable from project to project, and depend of modeling and estimation methodologies/software used, geology of the area, and perhaps more important is the opinion and experience of the Competent Geolo9gist making the call. Obviously, this all needs to be taking into consideration when comparing Korbel to peers.

Its difficult to make and 'educated' guess on how much of the Korbel resource has a chance of being upgraded, there is just too many unknown variables to us, but I will say 66% seems extremely optimistic for the first pass.