See note 4 to the estimate.
The change to a lower g/t cutoff (20 from 35) and a much smaller block in the modelling calculation, both of which are contrary to the move to 1650/oz from 1500/oz on gold. The increased avg price on gold used should have allowed the same or higher cut, and should not have necessitated a quartering in block size.
IMO it is the reduced block size that forces the reverse cubed extrapolation to extinguish much sooner, significantly reducing the amount added to the resource by each assay intercept, particularly with the inferred resource.
In my mind the question is whether there was malfeasance in practice by the NI qualified professionals involved in the initial two resource estimates, i. e. the use of an inappropriate block model for the size of intercepts, type of veining.
