re: Ann: McPhee Ck resource drilling -Strong ... I have looked...

re: Ann: McPhee Ck resource drilling -Strong ... I have looked at the cross section on page 17 of the UK presentation and compared it to page 4 of the recent McPhee Creek ASX release. The key difference is RCMC (reverse circulation McPhee Creek - I assume) 92. There are some startling differences that jump out taken in conjunction what you quoted WC.

“...good evidence from surface mapping that the mineralisation extends further east than the area currently drilled, with outcropping very shallow dipping hematite located several hundred metres further east. As the eastern most hole on most sections drilled is mineralised, this suggests that relatively flat lying mineralisation could extend considerably further...”

Looking at the air photo, or landsat (or what the hell these new fangled things are) directly above the new interpreted x-section on page 4, it appears we are looking at gently dipping synform plunging toward the north-east. Assuming that the boundaries are defined by the drill dots (yellow and blue), and that the bar is a 1km scale (can never be sure with GIR maps – they are typically fuzzy) – then we are looking at only 3km of an 8km outcropping iron ore ridge (as per previous announcements). The synform is therefore is potentially defined as the region in between these dots to the east and west (unfortunately there are no x-sections from the drill announcement of Sept. 2009 – so I can not definitively say that both sets are co-joined).

I am going out on a limb here – and making some very simplistic assumptions, from a macro scale, it appears that the synform is in the shape of an obtuse triangle that curves to the west a bit - defined by drill-hole collars from September 2009 and November-December 2009. The length (3km – 3,000m) x width at greatest point (2.5km – 2,500m) x 0.5 (because it’s a rough triangle give or take a bit) x 30m thickness (pretty conservative, as almost everything drilled is thicker than that) x specific gravity (2.7 per metres squared) = 303.75Mt.

wow...

I know I must be totally wrong. The number is too big, and you would need better definition than what I can observe in the photo. But I have included this calculation as a working hypothesis, nothing else. But what I am certain off, if you haven’t worked this out yet, that the McPhee Creek is definitely not the 100 to 140Mt target for the whole 8km strike-length anymore.

So what if we change the assumptions a little. Drop the length to 2.5km (2,500m), assume that the mineralised portion is definitely confined by 150m of continuous drilling x 30m thickness x SG of 2.7 = 30.38Mt. There is no doubt in my mind that we have definitely got at least this (no doubt in my mind at all)

But if we use the information that is in the latest release (which is in code- granted), it suggests that mineralisation is relatively flat (low strip ratio too by the looks) and the eastern most hole extends several hundred metres past known mineralisation, then 2.5km length x 350m (has to be far greater than this surely) x 30m thickness x SG of 2.7 = 70.88Mt. This figure must be considered realistically as a minimum. And that is not including the other 5km of mineralisation...

I don’t have enough information to extrapolate for the rest of the project – but make no mistake; McPhee Creek must be at least a 200Mt to 300Mt DSO target by now – and the stock only jumped 7%.

I am getting giddy with excitement – I need a paper bag ASAP. This project alone, potentially has double the total tonnage in AGO. And as far as I know, only Paul Adams at DJC covers this stock. This stock is still so under the radar...