ignoring the "fog of war"...this looks ok..., page-29

It's in the fine print...

Firstly, the Durkin Prospect is in the Gawler Craton...lol...do not ignore any anomalous results here.

Secondly, what they have is clearly a very large geochemical anomaly (5km long), that has just been upgraded with "VISIBLE COPPER AND NICKEL SULPHIDE MINERALISATION CONFIRMED IN EXTENSIVE OUTCROP"...thats straight from their announcement today (they were yelling, not me).

lol

So...now they have obvious drill targets.

Importantly, they clearly resisted the temptation to simply zap away at the identified copper minerals...instead, they appear to have maintained the appropriate approach of testing the targeted soil horizon near these prospects...in which case the results are significant accross their wider geochem anomaly.

By way of comparison, from today's announcement from MEU...

"NITON spot readings include copper grades of up to 654.32 ppm Cu* (Table 1) significantly higher than the previously reported maximum of 175 ppm Cu.

I repeat, these are obviously soil horizon samples NOT rock-chip sample results. The actual results, compared to the rock-chip samples tell us this (the rock chip sample would have been in the thousands...or tens of thousands of ppm Cu)

Now we have that out of the way...lets look at the pre-drill announcement from SIR...



mmm...one might suggest MEU's results are at the very least comparable with SIR's pre-drill results...although I still think this comparison was a bit cheeky of MEU given they are in different areas, with different geological influences.

None the less, both sets of results are clearly the signs of very prospective ground...depending of course on where they are.

In certain geological settings these Cu results would be moderate at best, but in others potentially significant...this is due to the nature of the host rock, level and style of weathering and impact on the soil horizon being targeted.

So...when people start discussing the "insignificance" of the XRF results, it is a simple fact one cannot say this without understanding what they are "zapping"...and where.

One thing that is obvious though (to me at least), the XRF results are not the result of zapping the rock chip samples themselves...if they did this they would get % level readings...and this is visually obvious (especially the bornite sample)...see below image...

A two minute research exercise reveals they are actually discussing the results of their wider soil geochem programme, which peaks at 330ppm Ni and 175ppm Cu...see below...



The significance of geochem results depends on many factors including;

1. Sample spacing;

2. Soil horizon to be sampled (depends on minerals targeted lithology, weathering, etc)...which broadly relates to the depth of sampling;

3. Soil fraction to be sampled and analysed (generally either bulk soil or a particular size fraction), again depending on what they are targeting;

4. Finally...the method of sample analsysis.

The subtle differences that lead to interpretation of results can indicate the difference between exciting "anomalous" results...or just plain old ho-hum "anomalous" results.

Anyway...very early days, and I can't help but get the feeling (as I did with SIR), that certain people know what is coming next...

Cheers!