Corker, hi....forgive me for presuming to take up your time, if...

Corker, hi....forgive me for presuming to take up your time, if I may, as I, for one, would be interested to hear your impressions of the latest (22/9) report on drilling at Takane, of course only if you please.
There have been a number of disparaging comments, as one would expect. (I think any mention of disseminated sulphides tends to worry posters.)

Personally my initial feeling was also pretty negative, and disappointed to see the decision to cancel the second MMats hole. There was negative comment re the 25 cm interval of "heavily disseminated" in MAK 1 at 232m, however I noted the passage "this drill hole has produced further intersections indicative of a potentially mineralised sulphide system" and I wondered at the importance of that comment, if any?

Regarding the first hole and given there are no assays yet (and realizing they will not be great as disseminated), I noted the intervals were 6 metres from 84 to 90, 0.6 from 92, 8 from 362 , 15 from 380, and 12 from 398, all disseminated, 41.6 m in all.

I noted the criteria of the JORC code stated "the current drilling is designed to test geophysical targets (EM conductors) for the presence of sulphide mineralisation in new regional target area......"

Of course, if Kudu results were to be"good" the general feeling of malaise should ease, but if they are negative the effect will be unpleasant.

Welcome your comments based on your past field experience. Thanks in advance, and should you decide not to comment that would be perfectly understood.

Regards.