Moss, after i revieed my posts i certainly did not quote that in...

Moss, after i revieed my posts i certainly did not quote that in any of my posts - that is your interprtation of my interpretation.

My posts stated

23/04/18
"The prior HDR Salva estimate [AQC release of 29/11/2013] resource variography (and JORC points of observation maximum spacing) was based on coal quality parameters appropriate for the PCI product targeted at that time. If BCB are now targeting a coking product then the variography and points of observation maximum spacing will need to consider additional coal quality parameters appropriate for coking coal. This may have a material impact on the JORC categorisation (and tonnage) - potentially to reduce both total JORC tonnes and resource confidence if the variography indicates a reduced spacing (from the previously applied 250m Measured, 750m Indicated and 2000m Inferred)."
24/04/18
"BCB are saying that there may be "some patches" of coking product - this doesn't sound too convincing for a main product of coking coal. Other than the 2 holes they have drilled in the north I don't expect that the other historical drilling will have looked at and assessed this potential, but raw CSN results will be indicative. The AQC release mentioend some potential in the Aries seam but that was about it wrt promising raw CSN. I'd guess BCB will look to single stage process but then size to produce a fines fraction coking product if/as the ROM production material allows."
... "1.5 sets of lab results from 2 holes in a likely fault domained zone to the north of historical drilling does not equal "swag" in my books. Also these holes are some 2-3km away from the other holes in the tenure (albeit not far from holes HU5 and BL177 - but which may have limited useful coal quality data) - and arguably may not result in any JORC Resource increase in BCB's tenure. Have a read about "spotted dogs" in the JORC Code guidance notes."
The issues I have raised in my posts include quality, economics, capex, B&P productivity / unit cost, gas and geological structure, with the more recent posts emphasising economics & capex.

I agree that for the Romax (1.57) stated, the coking results are suprising (but not unheard of) wrt having material and quite good low vol coking properties. Again I point out (as per above) that the results are from 2 holes only and not applicable to the other area of the resource explored by AQC and more than just ash needs to be considered in variography to qualify it as a coking coal rather than PCI resource in my opinion.

I'm not making any move on acquiring shares until I get to review the assumptions and outcomes of the JT Boyd report and have some confidence of prospect of an economic project.

DYOR