There can be a difference between misleading and...

There can be a difference between misleading and under-informing.

Compared to a few absolute shonks I know, NWC is reasonable, not great. I'm not going to name the shonks because I don't enjoy letters from company lawyers. Question the 'facts', not the personnel who fabricate construct them.

As for the Cu-eq formula they use...it is conservative.

NWC have never published a full set of meaningful cross-sections so the geometry of the mineralised lenses is available only to the company and those with geological software or the patience to hand-draw the bastards. JORC says they "must" but it is rarely if ever enforced.

In my last job, all studies had independent review and reserves and resources were independently reviewed every second year. Releases were all compliant with JORC 2012 because the Competent Persons were competent and valued their signature.

I wish they would stop farting around with pissant satellite deposits...a distraction and waste of money.

As for Hot Copper, the mods know stuff all and so any complaint from a company is treated as sacrosanct and you get modded up the wazoo.