dso crushing underway, page-30

Which part of the JORC code are you referring to Greenpines?

Or are you just talking about "the vibe" of the JORC Code.

Seriously... the resource being potentially underestimated is the result of two things, neither of which are in the JORC Code.

1) RC drilling through the native copper zone didn't sample coarse native copper effectively because it just got smeared on the hammer, and didn't go back up the tube and into the sample bags - CDU have produced numerous lovely photos of this phenomenon

2) The resource geo has applied a top-cut to the assay data prior to kriging it. For the non-technical amongst you, this means that where an assay might have returned (for example) 60% Cu, the resource estimation will treat it as a statistical outlier and pretend it is actually 10% (or whatever is deemed appropriate from a statistical evaluation).

The first issue is entirely the fault of CDU for persisting with RC drilling through the NCu resource.

The second issue is a reality of spatial statistics. Many, many years of refinement of the kriging process(which was initially developed to provide estimates on nuggety, high-grade gold deposits) have found that to get the most reliable estimates of a resource, statistical outliers need to be removed or modified. This is accomplished through a pretty rigorous and mathematical process. If you think that you know better, than by all means, approach the AusIMM and get yourself certified as a CP, and go and sign off on the resource. Otherwise, stop bagging JORC - you clearly have very little idea what JORC actually is and what the code says.