Hi FredLooking at your points in bold:This is what NXM considers...

Hi Fred

Looking at your points in bold:

This is what NXM considers economic at this point in time given the drilling that they have done.

I think you will see more MRE consultants and competent persons insisting that this is the new norm moving forward. A lot of JORC resources out there will be gutted like a fish if they have to be updated to JORC 2023. The NXM MRE can be upgraded to JORC 2023.

If you want to do some more maths, take a look at the BRB resource upgrade dated December 2021: http://research.iress.com.au/IDS/old/20211220/02468808.pdf?uid=31ADBE8336A1E01A3079C0DBB526CE9F10610000721106D08FFEE540093D250091850000&ppv=

At Claypan, BRB used 200x80m drill spacing to delineate an inferred 69,000oz resource at 1.1g/t grade at 0.5g/t cutoff. The BRB resource is dotted with inferred resources of 80m and 100m+ spacing.

The rest of the "headline" deposits making up the inferred parts of the 1m+ oz resource are less rigorous than NXM. Keeping in mind NXM does not use greater than 40x40m for its inferred resource, the BRB JORC table says:

Inferred Mineral Resources were defined where there was a low to moderate level of geological confidence in geometry, there was still continuity of grade and drill spacing was greater than 40m. Inferred Resources were typically estimated in the second to third pass. Inferred Mineral Resources includes domains which were estimated using Nearest Neighbour techniques.

BRB is one of the ones everyone likes to compare to around here - but the metrics are not the same. NXM is using a conservative method which gives credibility to its numbers. NXM uses 20x20m for indicated and 40x40m for inferred. The difference between JORC 2012 and JORC 2023 will become apparent as these other companies have to upgrade their resources. The 175k pitable ounces are likely real, credible numbers that can be relied upon and given some value.

As I said earlier, NXM's Exploration Target could probably be considered Inferred Resource if they really wanted it to - but why bother when the JORC Code 2023 will not allow it in the near future. The point of the change being that pie in the sky, hyped up, unmineable resources should be deleted just as the JORC 2012 did to JORC 2004 resources.

Did NXM consider a 200m pit depth but then realised only a 50m pit depth is economical at this point in time.

Based on the above, I don't see how this could be true. NXM did targeted drilling and modelling and prove a resource as well as an Exploration Target capable of upgrade. Are you suggesting NXM should have lowered the standard of its inferred resource and lowered the credibility of its JORC to imagine a 200m deep pit?