Speccy I didn’t see your post till now but I’ll take a stab as...

Speccy I didn’t see your post till now but I’ll take a stab as to what went on with respect to the large difference between the old resource estimates vs the current resource.
1) Resource Classification - In 2015 the resource estimate published was either indicated or inferred. With almost 80% being inferred (i.e the lowest confidence). Current resource is is majority indicated with some in the measured status - as part of the increased confidence there may have been a reduction in grade/tonnage with the infill drilling.
2) Recovery - The initial resource estimated a 90% recovery for Copper
and 75% recoveries for all other metals. They had not done met testing at that stage so were using industry “guesstimates”. Since then they have undertaken met testing which for Co was slightly lower and Pb/Zn/Ag were significantly lower (below is taken from the resource from earlier this year).


If the original recovery factors were used on the current resource it would likely have resulted in a much higher Cueq grade and resource size (however that is not realistic based on actual met testwork)

The large part of the current resource is at a much higher standard with recoveries based on actual testing instead of guesstimates.

Far be it from me to defend management on their communications and delays to date but hopefully this explains the current situation to your group.