Wardley Report - WOW, page-26

Thats a perfectly reasonable question to ask Au99999 - and there are probably many reasons for the large discrepancy between the 1989 Wardley resource estimate and the later QMN and AMG ones.

1. Depletion of higher grade oxide ore from 1989-1991 by the open pit mining taking away a portion of the high grade ore - thus losing some tonnes and grade. As I said before - the Wardley estimate is a snapshot in time while they were still open pit mining.

2. Wardley report talks about ignoring doubtful sample quality wet deeper RC holes as per what Chalco is implying, with the older RC drilling and their cross-over subs its also possible that shallow RC holes also had gold smearing effects. Wardley themselves even admit these sort of limitations in their own report with deep RC holes and wet samples and discrepencies between diamond holes and nearby RC holes.

3. Geographic uncertainty as to the collar location and down hole trajectories of some of the older holes - which can change the dimensions and positions of ore grade intercepts and hence the geometry of the orebody We already have the case of old drill hole collars being buried or destroyed by more recent site earth moving activities or poorly documented, or poorly documented in an old local mine grid that may need re-establishing/rechecking by surveyors.

4. Different cut-off's used to define what is ore and what is waste between the 1989 Wardley report and the more recent QMN and AMG resource calculations. There would be different assumptions about wha mining techniques and what costs go into deciding what is "ore" and what is "waste". There would be little doubt that DMR would have been "high grading" their open pit ore, due to low gold prices and a small mill, and they even left behind a waste pile that got reclassified as a low grade ore stockpile that AMG sold to Round Oak in 2018. Different economics in a different time.

5. More drilling data was available to QMN in 2012 because there was more drilling conducted by several companies between 1989 and 2012, this means that the QMN resource estimate may have discarded a few old holes where there is doubtful data but is informed by many more new holes. And again the AMG resource estimate may have discarded the same holes that QMN did (or may have been able to access older data to re-include a few previously lost/poor data holes?) but was also informed by even more drilling completed between 2012 and 2019. In general - the "newer" the RC drilling, sampling, assays and down hole surveys are - the more reliable they are because face sampling RC hammers are better than older RC methods with the cross flow subs and the more likely they are that they can be included in a JORC compliant resource estimate because they have accurate down hole surveys, same goes for diamond drilling but again, diamond drilling depends on core recoveries and on reliable drill hole collar positions and down hole surveys so again, the more recent the better.

6. Different resource estimation and geological modelling methods from simple polygon calculations (Wardley 1989) to more recent computer generated block model ordinary kreiging resource estimations like QMN (2012) and AMG (2020).

There would be other reasons that I haven't thought of that other posters have possibly referred to.

So as far as Mt Freda ore resource is concerned - there are two "answers" that use recent data plus some older validated data to come up with similar ballpark numbers of tonnes and grade, and one old "answer" that maybe doesn't account for mining dilution and only has older data, and uses less sophisticated resource estimation techniques to come up with muchhigher grades. I will leave it to reasonably well informed investors about which is likely to be more accurate.

burrasa75 and most other posters on here get it - they know that a JORC compliant resource estimation is more likely to be believable, than an older limited document. If you rang up the Wardley guys today and got them out of retirement, and asked them what would they suggest be the tonnes and grade at Mt Freda today they would probably refer back to the more recent JORC compliant estimates, rather than their original report. This is no criticism of them - they did the job they were paid to do in 1989 with the limited data that they had at the time - they even put in some cautionary statements about their estimate and its limitations so they are not "wrong" - there is just more and better info available now.