the fine print

This is the fine print from the Hellman & Schofield report. Some of it is quite enlightening (frightening);

Eg, in the section "Previous Estimates", H&S say the following;
"The methodology for the 25Mt resource estimate...appears to be a manual polygonal technique based on a geometry of 600m (strike) by 45m (true width) by 250m (depth) by 3.7 (density) resulting in 25 Mt. The grade estimate is described as based on assay results for 21 Reverse Circulation (RC) drill holes and visual estimates and interpretation of the mineralisation for six unassayed RC holes.
The estimation technique used for the 2006 Resource Estimates is completely differen from that employed by H&S. The new estimates by H&S are by block modelling techniques that are expected to be reasonably model grades (sic) and tonnages realized in a mining operation.
Furthermore, the densities used in the current study to convert volumes into tonnages range from 2.38 to approximately 3.0 depending on mineralisation type. These represent a reduction in density of 65% to 81%.

For the layman: they just made up the 2005 resource by doing what is colloquially known as a "back of the envelope". You just get a ruler, squint, and do a simple rectangular slab. Then you pick a mysteriously high density (3.8 would be pure massive sulphide) to make the tonnage bigger. Then you guess what the drill core and RC chips grade in 25% of the holes transecting your neat rectangular slab of fake rock. Throw in some unicorn horn and witches salt, and voila! 25Mt at 2% Cu Equivalent using a metal price of $3.17 per pound. Which just happens to be the spot price on that day (check out http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/copper_historical_large.html#5years ) and not what anyone would consider a long-term average price at that time.

There is also some possible good news. H&S says copper may have been underestimated by 5% - this could be vital in such a massive low grade body of rock. You really need every atom of copper you can get.

However. They haven't done rigorous QA/QC. 419 samples in 2007, none since. This is despite a massive cobalt reassay program. Low grade copper hasn't been assayed for Au. Their cobalt standards aren't appropriate and are too high of a grade to provide any help (hence the cobalt reassaying).

To think...anyone could have grabbed a calculator in 2006 and just got to work hammering out a JORC resource from the company's ASX releases, and returned a basically identical number. Though it would have been a brave person to pick 3.17 as a SG.