Visual inspection of base metal sulphides by a geologist is...

Visual inspection of base metal sulphides by a geologist is still subject to minor to moderate errors (say ±10-30% errors) but still obliged to disclose with photo if possible.

Using portable XRF analyzers on drill core for base metals and taking averages is also subject to errors (say ±10-15% errors), ironically RC and RAB chips are more homogenous so XRFs readings in RC or RAB chips can often more accurate than with drill core.

For gold exploration the rule of thumb is you need to be better than 1Oz per tonne (31g/T Au) before you can even visually see gold mineralization (unless its concentrated in a vein or have access to microspore and thin sections - unlikely on a drill rig).

Whether you report visuals with photos, or just a table of estimation percentages of sulphide minerals, always better to inform the market if its considered to be materially significant.

Its a lay-down misere that if any significant percentage of copper sulphides over multiple metres are identified in the current round of drilling at Lake Torrens that these are totally and unarguably materially significant.


If the news has leaked or large unexpected movements in share prices happen you are doing it wrong and are likely already in trouble with the regulators.