I'd be cautious with this inversion - the measured peak values...

I'd be cautious with this inversion - the measured peak values are around 28ms against a background of 10-14, so only 2x background in the raw data as shown in the pseudosections in the back of the report. Granted, pole-dipole pseudosections are notoriously difficult to read compared to dipole-dipole pseudosections, and the inversion process does a lot more heavy lifting, but as an exploration geo who has been burnt by overly optimistic IP results many times, I wouldn't have much confidence in that peak chargeability value.
I'm also pretty critical of their reporting on the IP results near Chalcus, saying it could represent a new lode. The IP line is only 70m away from, and sub-parallel to Chalcus - it is an offline effect from that sulphide body, not a new lode or "sulphide halo". The survey was a 50m dipole spacing, so at n=4 (i.e. where the anomaly appears to kick in) you are already sampling rock ~100m offline from the survey line.

The target is worth drilling again for sure - the general character of this deposit seems to be steeply dipping shoots developed on fault intersections, rather than extensive planar lodes, and these are notoriously difficult to hit. I just don't like the way that geophysics has been processed, it could lead to wasting money chasing a bunch of overstated anomalies.