I see things differently to that of both BeeJaye and Blythefan....

I see things differently to that of both BeeJaye and Blythefan.

# The 5/9 ann said, in relation to the drilling, that its purpose was to determine geological controls and geometry of the high‐grade zones of mineralisation in WDRC005...'

# 10 holes were strategically (ie pre-plotted) planned, and yet they only drilled 5.

# yesterday they said that the drilling had mapped the geometry of the oxide copper mineralisation and that they were going in now with a 550m deep diamond drill hole.

Now, I see it as simple as that. I take the comments on face value. They had a purpose; they achieved that purpose (with half the number of holes too) and are now going in with a 550m length DDH to target sulphide copper mineralisation at depth by testing the thickest part of the modelled down-plunge projection.

Now for a negative slant. Even though 5/9 ann said that the purpose was to determine controls and geometry, if mineralisation had been encountered along the way that was of such a quality and/or quantity that if it was to be made known to the market would have boosted the SP, then it could not be withheld. Why? Because of the duty of continuous disclosure!

So, what sort of mineralisation would be 'material' information? That's an interesting question! Imo, it would have to be ay least equal to or better than RC5. Think about it! Even if they had rushed off samples to the lab after visuals and XRF and they were oxides; it would have to be something special to move the SP up. That said, any oxide reading, no matter how special, would probably not move the market. The market wants sulphides. Clearly, sulphides were not found. I bet that oxides were though!