Now I am just holding a ruler up against the screen here, and...

Now I am just holding a ruler up against the screen here, and perhaps the scale bar is wrong, or I have had one too many reds, but I make out those "blast hole assays" (more on that in a bit) at being on a 1m spacing, so each of your blocks there has a somewhat smaller 5 cube volume, or 14 tonnes at 2.88 g/t.

Whilst they state on page 4 that the stockpile grades are estimated based on a mix of blast hole assays and resource model, they claim the dig plan grades are all from blast hole assays. Looking at the distribution of grade numbers on the dig plans, I would say a considerable proportion of them have come from the resource model. It is inconceivable that in a coarse, nuggety deposit like LM native copper zone that you would get groups of 6-8 adjacent samples all identical to the stated 100ppm (2 decimal places in the percent Cu). I suspect that the grade control drilling was done on a 2.5 x 2.5 x 5 grid (as SB stated), but then the plans shown here are actually a model based on that that has been displayed in a finer block resolution. Somewhat misleading if it is the case, and I would expect a clarification to follow.
The other thing that still gets my goat is the CuEq calculations and using $2/lb Cu, $900/oz Au and $26/lb Co. This is pure sleight of hand. I mean wow! what a responsible, conservative copper price estimate, and what a sensible, precautionary gold estimate, and well cobalt, who the heck even knows what that is worth anyway?
But if you normalise these price assumptions to today's copper price of $2.89/lb, gold is actually 10% over current spot prices, and cobalt is a whopping 175% over its current spot price... all down to having a low Cu estimate to calculate CuEq.

And something else that I noticed for the first time that surprised me... Page 17: Where gold assays were not present, gold has been estimated using a regression based on a ration of 1% Cu = 0.2g/t Au. Possibly fair enough if the data supports it, but what proportion of gold "assays" that informed the resource model were based on a regression calculation, and why is it mentioned in the copper equivalent calculation section? Surely something like that should have been mentioned commentary directly relating to the resource estimation methodology.


(...and where is JORC table 1?)