It looks like you're using M&I numbers while I used M&I&I to show how  some of the metal can move between categories depending  on who and how the numbers are estimated. Either approach is fine as long as you specify which one and compare apples to apples. They didn't use a NSR cut-off for resources in the FS, but a cueq % cut-off. The $ 6.60 NSR was used for ther reserves. Teck uses the NSR approach for resources and so will the new PEA. I don't see how you can book another 5% as a certainty when the statistical variation between results from multiple users of the same input data will be on the order of 5%. Remember when Elmer put out the numbers from the Teck RE and said they weren't significantly different from the FS numbers?