Article, page-9

I share your frustration. I honestly think that some people just don’t understand the JORC code despite using mining terminology. I also suspect they don’t understand the words that Tom used - very carefully selected I suspect - that show the last update is designed for one purpose and that is preparatory to the PFS. Those words suggest to me that the modelling was intended to produce figures that would translate very directly to the next phase. That doesn’t mean Tom couldn’t have dredged up inferred figures based on the geology but his focus has also quite clearly been on the open pit potential.

(I can also just imagine the furore if they had gone from big inferred numbers to measured with the inevitable discount that would normally involve simply because the level of detail and measurement has increased).

I concur also with your proposition that a second opinion is important if they intend to raise funds by borrowing because it provides an underpinning to their own work. That makes it even more important to focus on the open pit potential because most likely that would be what they want to fund.

If that is the case there is little value in including large inferred resources, especially if as has been suggested in prior updates they have already done work on the feasibility of the open cut which presumably suggests that it is viable and viable at reasonable cost.

If that is the case it also occurs to me that the opinion includes information that is highly commercially sensitive and therefore does not need to be released to the market at this point.

If these propositions are the case then anyone suggesting that trust is at stake, as has been much of the argument since the release, is putting a lot of store on the missed projections of when announcements would be released. No one likes that of course but in the world of mining and engineering projects that’s less uncommon than one would like to think. Tom can solve the problem by doubling his projections or remaining silent but then some shareholders won’t like that either.

I dont think we will ever quite get over the determination of some to want big numbers - inferred or otherwise - but others might prefer to look at what counts. I’ve reviewed many mining threads over the years and sometimes it is scary to see the level of excitement rise with flakey figures and the despair when the figures go down as certainty increases. That is the food of traders and damper but not my preference.

As you say if one checks out the reporting against the steps required all is as it should be.

I can can only hope that those who are deeply concerned and have decided that their views are accurate and that Breaker no longer fits their risk profile or short term needs also decide it is time to let go while they watch on the sidelines and reserve the right to laugh at us if we are wrong.

P