Thanks for the explanation, makes it easier to understand what...

Thanks for the explanation, makes it easier to understand what the logic was now.

I maybe wouldn't worry about using the smaller block size until more detailed drilling is done and more data is available. As you say - in some places the drill spacing is quite wide and there is a lot more information to come. As I mentioned in previous posts myself, I thought that the 100-200MtMt figures might be a little optimistic at this stage in my own opinion, based on current drilling data, but most people who have attempted to model/guess at least the main known AP10, 11 & 12 mineralisation (not the whole Pegmatite but the mineralised portion) have produced varying numbers from 30Mt up to 60Mt depending on how generous/conservative they want to assume extrapolating mineralisation down dip/along strike and how generous/conservative they want to be interpolating thickness and grade between existing drill pierce points.

Such a wide variation in estimates/wild guesses shouldn't be a huge surprise, as there is more drilling to be done,, and of course there is the unknown potential of what hasn't been drilled either along strike or in the new Target Areas 2 & 3. Cannot ignore that, but also cannot quantify anything yet, as there just isn't enough/any drilling results available yet.

Rather than dropping an enormous cone over the entire ore zones it might be that once they get a better idea on the geometry and distribution of tonnage and grade that some more "efficient" or lower strip ratio pits could conceivably drop out of future resource estimates but your point stands that strip ratios of waste to ore are a valid consideration down the track.