Ann: Full Year Statutory Accounts, page-32

In my first post: I stated the following:

"10000 ppm to equate to 1%, so as long as the ppm count has been done correctly (including compounding which is where you deal with the issue  btw- http://www.ausetute.com.au/partspm.html) then start with that."  It is a question of how they did the ppm count - technique and how compounding dealt with in the PPM count itself - to see whether you simply can apply that conversion to get back to %.  Looking at the two tables again, i.e. page 22 compared to page 23, I think you are correct that the Lab are doing it after the ppm count (just a guess because if doing Table 22 correctly they would have just reported the ppm per se), so without knowing what the Lab has done difficult to comment further.  It shouldn't be hard, all ION has to do is ask the Lab  how the PPM count was done and how they see the conversion from ppm to %, or simply ask for  the ppm counts for those readings above 10000 (for Co, Cu and Zn) and report then so you can visualise the formula itself and do your own conversions for anything below 10000 and apply consistently.  It could just be a case that teh Lab said, ok will will stop at anything above 10000 PPM and then do a more solid test on them, but don't know.

For cobalt, ironically it is possible mines are viable where cobalt grades above 0.2% -0.3%, provided the deposit has some good copper/zinc in it. So need to look at the whole picture here but agree with what you are saying trust wise etc.

All IMO