My thoughts based on review so far.
I can’t help wondering if the reactionyesterday came from any of the following:
· Focusing on thetimelines rather than the content
· Looking at headlinefigures without understanding what they really mean
· Not considering thatthe data clearly indicates an upgrade in the level of confidence attributableto the results
· Ill temper
· Not havingunderstood previous announcements.
Without going back over all theannouncements I have focused, for this post, on just two – that of July 12 andthe most recent 2 September (9 weeks apart)
In July there was atable that showed thus:
(At 0.5g/t cut off)
· Indicated 12,549,000 tonnes - 624,000ounces – 1.5 g/t
· Inferred 12,050, 000 tonnes -460,000 ounces – 1.2 g/t
· Total 24,599,000 tonnes - 1,084,000 ounces – 1.4g/t
The September tableusing the same cut-off was
· Indicated 18,356,000tonnes – 803, 000 – 1.4 g/t
· Inferred - 4,853,000 tonnes - 178,000 – 1.1g/t
· Total 23,210,000 tonnes -981,000 – 1.3g/t
Let’s look at what those differences actually mean:
· The total hasdecreased by roughly 100,000 ounces, but more importantly
· There has been a substantialincrease in the indicated resources with a decrease in inferred.
· Indicated means you can be alot more confident of their figures. Inferredhas a level of “rubberyness”
· Since the latter isan estimate for which there is a low level of confidence the shift to indicatedshould be regarded with pleasure – not the reverse and certainly not withaccusations of lost resource.
· There has been acorresponding movement of tonnage
· You can also expectto see shifts as they do further work to complete the PFS.
To quote the JORC code
“An “Inferred MineralResource‟ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade orquality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limitedsampling. Geological evidence issufficient to imply but not verified, geological and grade (or quality) continuity.It is based on exploration, sampling and testing information gathered throughappropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,workings and drill holes.”
“An “Indicated MineralResource‟ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (orquality), densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficientconfidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detailto support mine planning and economic viability of the deposit. Geologicalevidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing gathered through appropriatetechniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drillholes, and is sufficient to assume geological and grade (or quality) continuitybetween points of observation where data and samples are gathered.”
Since the 1.1moz was far more rubberythan the current figure, having an indicated resource that is not actually thatfar off should be satisfying. The 1.1moz has been used since September 2018 when we were first given the table above that was used in July 2019. If anyone claims that 1.1moz to be a fixed figure, a promise that more would appear or that somehow miraculously that all the inferred would become indicated they are either wilfully misusing the information or don’t understand it. Who knows what else is not properly understood or what expectations exist that are going to be found wanting. Tom has used appropriate terminology given the data he has provided and he has done what is required of him even if he hasn’t met expectations created in the heads of some or his own unfortunate sense of timing
Why anyone has had a hissy fit oranywhere near to that on those figures completely puzzles me.
“Some posters argue BRB now has a more robust and certain resource as a result. Maybe, but wasn't that also meant to be the case last year. Very little certainty or accountability here IMO.”
If you write that I’d suggest you don’tunderstand the terminology and haven’t read the detail of the reports. We DO have more certainty – and yes last year we had more certainty than the year before. That’s the whole point of drilling and analysing results. Prior to that the figures were as follows (with a lower cut-off grade of 0.2g/treported above .5g/t)
· Indicated - 5,276,000 tonnes – 1.6g/t - 264,000oz
· Inferred - 6,600,000 – 1.7g/t - 360,000 oz.
In otherwords BRB has been progressively moving towards greater levels ofcertainty. And since the next step is more certainty still expect the figures to change again when the PFS comes out. There is a structured and rule bound process for resource announcements.
I alsohave a feeling – but it is no more than that – that there is more to come butTom IS being conservative in hisreporting of further resources. For example he comments “resource includes miningdilution in preparation for the PFS, pit optimisations and a maiden reserve.” In other words he obviously understands how increasing levels of certainty can change results and probably also understands that others don’t.
If you readthe earlier reports we can also clearly see that drilling has not just been aboutbeing able to judge indicated resource but that we have been trying to get abetter grip on the geology and to find the extremities of the deposit. (Whichthey still have not achieved).
There is one comment in the report thathas not even been mentioned in all of this fuss. “Our mining studies indicate potential for alarge open pit at gold prices as low as A$1,000 /oz”.
There areother questions I could ask, and will in due course, and I don’t have a problemwith criticising Tom on the way he sets expectations on timing but I am alsorealistic enough to know that there are so many factors that influence timingon anything so I can live with that.
Much of thecommentary on this tread has, from where I sit, included opinions, angryrebuttals of the few that have tried posting data or references and, for somereason a fixed version of what Tom has said that reflects neither the technicalrules nor the actual words used in announcements.
In my viewwe can all pose questions of course but we should try to be analytical withit. That helps everyone! Here are some ideas:
· The detailed results and figures and the tables fromannouncements
· Reference to terminology in the JORC code
One lastthought – this is a speculative share. Check out the figures for success in transitioning from an explorer to a producing miner. It’s hard enough to pick a good explorer and a known challenge is the transition to a producer. So you can expect a few emotional roller coasters. Why add to them by focusing on matters other than what the announcement is actually telling us.
p
Expand
