The grades returned overall are low imo.......but the results...

The grades returned overall are low imo.......but the results are from small representative samples in real terms especially when we're talking about nuggety systems.

We will be using/processing 125sq meter bulk hits to define this resource (pit 200 was 125sq meters and graded 600mg or 0.6g per cubic meter)....these pit results are from 5sq meters give or take.

Interestingly this time there was no evidence of free gold as seen before? Pits 1-4 were expected to be lower-end as stated but for the others in the mix I would've liked to see a bit better 'consistency' across the results, (compare results for pits 5 through 10 for example). Consistency is harder to achieve with these smaller 'trial' pits, so the 125sq meter bulks will hopefully provide a 'better' picture regarding variance.

They have certainly defined a large and still open area but grade variance along strike and at depth is a big question which will take plenty more results to properly get a grip on. As an example grades quoted for pit 006 as they move down the profile show significant variance over small intervals, compare also the 'bulk' results with the 'channel sample' results in Fig 2. I'm also very interested to see what happens as they go deeper into this system.....they have quoted its 70-90m deep over a large lateral extent.....and we're testing the upper 5m.

Gold/plant recovery of 98% is excellent imo.

It is early days however and the conglomerate hosted gold is only one part of this story.

The 'source' is arguably why most are invested here.