No doubt the market won't like it but I can see the strategy.NXM...

No doubt the market won't like it but I can see the strategy.

NXM could have made a 0.5g/t cutoff inferred resource of probably 1m+ ounces which will never see the light of day.

It looks like the approach chosen is to prove a sensible, sustainable resource that ticks boxes for buyers or sharing of profits with NST or whoever else.

The resource is for a pit. As much as I hate "in ground value" metrics, there is a $525m, 175koz in-ground resource at 2g/t in a pitable resource - largely indicated status - adjacent to NST. The resource is designed to be mined.

The Lake Rebecca (the one everyone likes to compare to) had a cut-off of 0.5g/t: https://www.apolloconsolidated.com.au/rebecca/ This is a significant difference which should not be overlooked in terms of metrics.

If NXM reported in the same terms as Rebecca then the numbers would be different - but probably just as unfavourable as Rebecca (hence the $100 per oz sale price).

The differences between exploration target and inferred resource aren't remarkably dramatic (as set out in the JORC 2012 https://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf). I am sure a company less sensible would just treat it all as inferred.

While I don't think the big number boys will like it, a sensible commercial customer such as the NST, SBM or RMSes of this world will probably find it quite a favourable deposit on a granted mining tenement - with plenty of room for expanding, or converting the Exploration Target into JORC (for purposes of underground or other pits).