@ShoddyOfferFirst up let me say that I agree 100% that what you have here is a more sensible case people should be gravitating towards when trying to feel around blindly for a rough estimate in the event there is good indications of commercial reservoir from the results. I'd suggest it' might even be a bit high given it's based on the PMean (probably around P35-P40). I fully support you pushing back against unsupported rampy figures.
I would just add that there is a small chance of the P10 (and maybe higher) case, which could significantly alter these figures to the upside. Even though it's unlikely for the reservoir to have P10 recovery parameters, if these figures are the Pmean on a max 650m of Upper Angwa and there are indications the Upper Angwa could be as much as 1200m at the crest (which doesn't mean almost doubling! the geology is more complex than that) and potentially filled to spill from Scott's statements, it does kind of increase the chances of a figure closer to the P10 (And that could just be increasing it from the P50 to the PMean you've used here).
It's still entirely possible of course to end up with a figure closer to the P90 or a non commercially recoverable resource at all, depending on the thickness of the reservoir intervals and their productive capability or lack thereof. It's just that the one clear measurement we have - of the interval - kind of gives us a better chance higher result in a purely theoretical sense. But again, a chance, a roll of the dice, and from our standpoint with our information.
So I'd just say that if we're going to discuss it referencing the numbers provided we should probably look at the full range rather than just the PMean, whilst being very cognizant not to assume the best case scenarios given how rarely they actually come about.
