That's exactly the issue Bretto, it's a guess. There are...

That's exactly the issue Bretto, it's a guess. There are insufficient data to estimate production rates as there's no Reserve published, no mining schedule and no reconciliation of mined material to date, at least not that I'm aware of. How can you reconcile mining against a resource anyway? All we hear is that they found some Cu mineralisation outside the resource envelope. When are we going to hear that there was waste found within the resource envelope? It happens in every mine.
I've yet to hear a plausible reason from the Happy Clapper brigade as to why the BFS was quietly put on a shelf to gather dust, away from prying eyes after spending shareholders funds to produce it. If the results were nailed on positive, why would WM not be holding the tome aloft like a Baptist minister with a bible, acclaiming the independent corroboration of his project. No, nothing....just an information vacuum, a deluge of glossy pictures and a report gathering dust on the shelf.
Blaming the JORC is a convenient cop-out to deflect scrutiny. As Pup Tentacle mentioned on this thread, the JORC is what a Competent Person is, or isn’t willing to publicly sign off on….a best practice attempt to estimate how much metal is in the ground, given the data made available to them. Now, the company recognised some time ago that there were issues with nature of the mineralisation at Rocklands. This would normally mean that exploration practices need to be adapted to account for the alleged abnormal nature of the mineralisation. This might result in a change in sample spacing and/or sample size, amongst other things. These decisions need to be made during exploration in order to demonstrate what the company believes is the true distribution of the metal content in ground and have that translated to a JORC compliant resource. There’s no point in blaming the Joint Ore Reserves Committee, or the independent who interpreted the Company’s data. The JORC guidelines are applicable to any deposit, but it requires the company to collect the appropriate data if they want to demonstrate what they believe is in the ground.
CDU had every opportunity to collect sufficient data to demonstrate the true in ground metal content but either they chose not to, or they believed that the exploration they had conducted was sufficient. They could have conducted detailed, large diameter drilling over selected areas believed to have high contained metal, but it appears that they chose to spend shareholder funds drilling Wilgar on a 2m grid spacing (why not do this at LM?) or fanning a shotgun pattern of low angle oblique holes at Fairfield, or drilling 5000m+ of diamond core into shoe box 250m below surface at Rocklands Sth, that appears to have made no material impact on the latest Resource.
The current JORC is the company’s best attempt to define the resource, so that’s what needs to be incorporated as the basis for a BFS. So, why has the outcome of the BFS not been released to the public/shareholders?

Why as a shareholder should you be reduced to guessing? Would you not be better to guess whether the marble lands on the red or the black on the roulette wheel. At least you'd have an almost 50% chance of being correct.