Ann: Quarterly Activities Report and Cashflow, page-29

Hi Esh, really value your insight.

They say that success in junior investing is about answering unanswered questions. The unanswered question, that you've very clearly defined is if the gold-in-soil anomalies from BLEG sampling is a reliable proof of concept to drill out these anomalies. The case that CHN is looking for is that the gold is disseminating up from bedrock. The less convincing (for a gold discovery) case is the colloidal gold samples are from another location with lots of gold, probably from Bendigo.

CHN hopes to see a vertical trend in soil samples from further drilling, but also intersect gold from RC's. They have one RC drill and one RC/AC drill going. From the investor presentation, there is estimated 20-50m of cover over the west anomaly and 10-30m over the south anomaly. The east target has 90-110m of sedimentary cover, which is less encouraging. One would assume, the lighter the cover, the more reliable the anomalous BLEG samples are. 

Moreover, the anomalies overly fault structures. Particularly the Western target is overlying a significant fault structure. If the anomaly was from erosion, weathering, etc. then why are these significant anomalies overlying structures which would be indicative of potential gold mineralisation? I acknowledge your argument that it makes it difficult, and it is an unanswered question, but surely the probability of mobile colloidal gold is lower compared to the alternative we're all invested in.

Regarding the bedrock argument, I'm going to guess the geology underneath the sediments is somewhat similar to NML/CYL to the East. I know you're being a voice of reason, since we don't know what we really know until we put a drill in the ground. There's potential for a lot of things under cover, hopefully our unanswered questions are answered with certainty. (IMO, I Partially wrote this up to consolidate my understanding and codify my notes).