second state hole , page-9

incremental, my question to you is how can you be so confident that the second drill outcome wont be another "thinner and lower grade" result ?

I asked the question below the other day, but i dont think anyone answered specifically this question unless responses went over my head ...

If the first state hole was drilled some way away from the historic oil hole Husy, then the lower than anticipated thickness and grade may not be a problem IF the historic holes with their higher thickness and grades can be taken as reliable data, and if they can be used in the JORC calcs. If they can't, then the first hole replictaed in the other upcoming state holes would be a big concern - true ?

"Transit’s second hole (State Hole #2) is being drilled approximately five miles to the east as planned in the mineralised area north of the east-west fault. The
location of this hole is designed to confirm the results from previous oil well drilling,as well as to determine the extent of potash mineralisation in Bed 18 and Bed 13
to the east."

I still cant tell from this extract from todays announcement if they are going to drill along side a historic oil hole to see if they replicate the thickness and grades, or if they going to drill a distance away from a historic hole ?

I am loaded with TRH stock so I am a supporter, but I dont understand if the historic data is allowed to be used in the JORC cals, because if they're not, then another "thinner and lower grade" announcemnt would be .... let's not go there ?

Your comments please ?

tia