Graham Tanaka: Congratulations, guys, to you and your team. I’d...

Graham Tanaka: Congratulations, guys, to you and your team. I’d like to focus on Patterson East Corridor discovery. Could you tell us a little bit more about the geologic structure and maybe what implies for the ease or difficulty of replicating an Arrow Rook I development in terms of timing, cost? And then somewhat separately, how would you plan to dovetail a development of the Patterson Quarter East with the Arrow mine development production? Do you anticipate overlapping so that you’ll have a rise in production sometime in the next six to eight years? Thanks.

Leigh Curyer: Yeah, thanks, Graham. And they’re all absolutely key focuses once we understand what we have at this this new occurrence, 3.5 kilometers almost due east of Arrow, but also at a similar depth to the Arrow mineralization. Look, I think we — it’s still very early days. I just referenced everyone to Figure 3 in the news release. This hole is, like I said, a lot better than the discovery hole at Arrow. What we do know today is that we have 1.5 kilometer strike target for us to investigate. We’re seeing a lot of the similarities of the holes in and around Arrow in the holes that were drilled to date. Now it’s obviously subject to further drilling as to what we have here. What we can tell you though is that what today’s result has confirmed that the Patterson Corridor East is a mineralized corridor similar to Patterson Corridor which hosts Arrow, Cannon, Bow, Harpoon and also RRR owned by Fission to the southwest.

So we know we’re in a heavily mineralized area. And to give some context to Arrow, and as I said that we’ve got 3 meters of greater than 61,000 counts per second. So that is incredibly intense mineralization. That’s significantly higher than the Arrow discovery hole. We know we’re in the right setting, we’ve hit some very intense mineralization and what we have learned from Arrow is when you get that type of intense mineralization, you know you’re near a source and normally, subject to further drilling, a very, very significant source of uranium mineralization. So any discovery of this nature is obviously going to be incredibly accretive to the long-term mine plan of Arrow. In terms of CapEx and OpEx et cetera, again, way too early to determine that until we’ve done a number of programs that you’ve seen us do in the past since 2014 at Arrow.

But the Arrow Rook I feasibility study was always designed on the basis to facilitate additional uranium deposits in the area. We’ve always also been incorporating that into the final design and scope of the project, all within the federal permitting parameters of course and any new occurrence such as that Patterson Corridor East we’ve found today, if proven to be economic, would also be subject to permitting. But look, I think the takeaway from everyone today is that we expect to be producing at Rook I for considerably longer than what the current feasibility studies suggest. We’ve always known that. We’ve also got mineralization below Arrow at depth. And whilst that mineralization is yet to be fully defined and assessed economically, it’s clearly a reasonable expectation that you’ll see that go through the mill as well at Rook I.

So it’s incredibly exciting. In fact, potentially a major game changer over and above what we already have at Arrow, which is world class. So, Graham, give us some time and we look forward to responding with respect to all of those points that you’ve made.

Graham Tanaka: Yeah, I would just, if I could, sorry there’s so much here to try to digest. I’m sure even for you. But could you just give us a hint as to the geologic structure and whether the potential mine on PCE, Patterson Corridor East, would be similar to Arrow and therefore also given your applications for approvals for the Arrow Rook I project, can you accelerate the timeline for the development of a second major corridor? Or would it take 10 to 12 years?

Leigh Curyer: Well, what I can tell you based on what we know, I can only tell you what we know at the moment, Graham, and it’s exhibiting the holes in and around this new intercept are exhibiting similar metrics, similar style to the setting that is at Arrow. I can’t yet quantify exactly what’s there and the potential economics. It’s 3.5 k’s away and it’s on land. So any economically assessed deposition within the vicinity of Arrow will be able to be accommodated but subject to obviously permitting of those subsequent deposits. That is to be determined. I think what you can take away based on what we know today is that any economic mineralization within the vicinity of Arrow practically and environmentally would be — would obviously go through the mine. I think it’s way too early to talk about accelerating the development of any new occurrence after so few holes though.

Graham Tanaka: Yep, thank you very much. Good luck.

Leigh Curyer: Thank you.