Because it is a scoping study and not a DFS, and taking into...

Because it is a scoping study and not a DFS, and taking into account the drill spacing and variability in thicknesses of intersections thus far.. I'd guess that it would be either an inferred or indicated rather than a measured resource.

No mineral resource can be defined to JORC standard without first categorising it into one of the three categories...

I think the spacing is close enough to perhaps get it to indicated but because the mineralisation has thus far been quite variable in thickness we may only get an inferred resource at first pass.

It will still give us a far better indication of the scale of the deposits AND give the market a point of reference upon which to value the company and that is where I think the true value will accrue.

Having said that I also think that we should temper expectations as to size of initial JORC (emphasis on initial) as management appear to be keen to progress the project to production as quickly as possible and thus may drill with the objective to define a smaller JORC resource quicker rather than try to prove up at a lower confidence level the whole thing.

At this stage in the iron ore price cycle I would agree with this tactic as production will be a far greater value driver than just larger in ground defined resources. The scoping study in conjuction with the JORC will be the key here I would guess!

On another note despite Cyclone Poncho putting a dampener on my fishing holiday we still got into some fish and UMC's price action during that time has been encouraging in itself :P

Cheers
UIO