kitumba scoping study - diasppointing

I don't understand how the company could have produced a higher confidence level "Indicated" resources which are sufficient under JORC to produce Probable Reserves. However in past posts I have mentioned that there wasn't a proper geological model that has been produced and questioned how the company could produce "Indicated" resources. In today's annoucement it supports my initial concerns. Questions that should be directed to the company is that should the earlier resources be classified as "Inferred" rather than "Indicated" - my belief is that it should.

Now this just released study is just a scoping study. There will need to be a very detailed study with further drilling and time - perhaps 12 months etc for all this work to take place, plus the permitting. I would suggest a budget of around $30 million - perhaps $40 million?

It doesn't mention in the ASX release on when this Feasilbilty Study and the cost - the company should have provided this?



From today's annoucement -
Risks and Opportunities
The Project is currently at a scoping study stage of planning, with further work required to
confirm the assumptions and optimise the development strategy.
Given the high level nature of a scoping study, there are a number of risks which need to
be mitigated through further work. For example, the geological model is based on a grade
interpolation approach with limited geological constraints. Importantly, further metallurgical
test work is required to advance mineral processing design and support the recovery
estimates and costs to deliver the product to market.
The Study is conceptual in nature and includes Mineral Resources in both the Indicated
and Inferred categories. There is no certainty that the outcomes of the Study will be
realised.
The Company will address a range of issues including those listed above as part of future
more detailed mine design, planning and pre-feasibility work.