Ann: General Security Agreement, page-135

@karmalocust I have, however as we step out further and with different controls on mineralisation(CC faults, N-S faults, 3 brothers faults), it's getting harder to attribute intercepts to their CC faults. Take hole 66 for example. Due to it's location it will have the biggest impact of the resource size as it extends the CC faults further south and east considerably. Commentary for this hole is below which shows that the hit is where CC faults join. If I extend faults 400,450 and 500 to this location It will overestimate each CC fault as they overlap/join. With that said, assigning distinct intercepts of hole 66 to faults 400 & 450 returns a resource size of 1.5Moz.

"ZDDH00066 returned a broad intercept within the El Zorro Tonalite and associated with the northsouth trending Three Brothers fault and where the CC400, CC450 and CC500 faults join it. Higher grade zones associated with quartz veining within the CC fault zones."
Hole 63 was just as spectacular as 66 given it's location however as there are no other significant hits for CC faults 750 and 700 it doesn't have any impact on the calculated size yet. Once we stick more holes around there it will add some ounces.

With more emphasis starting to be placed on the importance of the NS faults, I've had a look at trying to define size using the NS faults. Some rough numbers below based on results so far.



If you take 50% for error you still get slightly under 2Moz. Then given the length of intercept at the boundaries it's highly likely this continues north and south. Depth should read thickness/height of mineralisation as left NS fault is mineralised from surface however right doesn't seem to be(say mineralisation from 150m-400m until we have more info). We just need the outstanding holes on the right to return similar lengths of mineralisation and this interpretation/model should hold.