As I sated in a post a while back, the crux of the argument will...

As I sated in a post a while back, the crux of the argument will revolve around the following:

1. The quantum of the resource remains unknown, and cannot be publically stated, as drilling and other exploration activities were not carried out, however, based on results from adjacent and nearby tenure, exhibiting similar geology, it is estimated by this author that expected Inferred resources in the range 0.8-1.2Bt would not be unreasonable across NSL's four tenures.

I find it interesting that the cited cases used as benchmarks were mainly about admissible evidence and process of reasoning etc.
60 . In summary, where a party by words or conduct discloses an intention to affirm or acknowledge a statement of fact or opinion by a third party, that statement is admissible in evidence against the party notwithstanding that that adoption be of something of which the party has no knowledge.
Expert evidence must explain how the expert's special knowledge applies to the facts and matters assumed to produce the opinion.

From what I can see at quick glance the argument brought forward revolved around interpretation of table and forward projections that were used without substance. The argument was a linguistic drama on what is admissible as evidence, what is perceived as data and what is not, and what is realistic on forming a conclusion.

The way I read the conclusion is that no further conclusion can be drawn from the data other than a difference of opinion.