Disc* I don't hold this, The company is currently valued much...

Disc* I don't hold this, The company is currently valued much lower than many of it's peers so I'm NOT saying that I think it is overvalued.

I think this ann is very misleading. When you take into account the full mineralised intercepts, I think the results overall are not that exciting. The use of small intersections from within each larger intersection combined with the cutoffs used creates a very good first impression and headline numbers, especially combined with red highlighted boxes. I don't think it is reasonable to pluck out smaller interceptions from within unless there is a way to either define/differentiate these for processing. Even if you could, the costs to dig up material that could be processed anyway to get to better material may not be beneficial anyway.

I went through the whole mineralised intercepts and calculated the average values/m of drilling intercept. They compare below average to peers IMO.

Head grade = 0.3497%
Mass recovery = 3.6661%
V2O5 in Conc = 1.7900%

I would assume these numbers are well below what many where thinking based on the bright colours and headline grabbing numbers in the ann. Compared to the numbers TNO produced today (*which I hold, and only 3 results so definitely a small sample size) and assuming all other things remain the same, then PUR would need to dig up and process more than 19x the amount of vanadium bearing material to get the same amount of V2O5 contained within the concentrate.

I realise that the numbers here could improve substantially with further drilling and optimised testing etc, but it needs a large improvement to get close to the higher valued peers. Obviously costs here may be lower so perhaps these numbers can be made viable, I'm pointing out how they appear much different to the first impression the ann gives.