Ann: Over 1gt Au PGE in Soils at Phils Hill Prospect, page-67

This is an interesting dataset. The 1g/t 3E PGE is very encouraging amidst what is mostly a typical to equivocal set of soil data.

For example, the nickel and copper are really quite modest in comparison to other mafic-ultramafic soil datasets, for example CPN, DEV, BLZ and EMT (where there's Ni to 0.15%). Cr is indicative of **bro, not neccessarily peridotites, at +/- 400ppm.

However, if one reads the JORC Table 1, there's a few clues as to why this dataset is showing equivocacy, and this hews back to some typical PUR themes.

For example, -60 micron is a brave fraction to engage in in the wheatbelt, in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of fine windblown sand, alluvium and loess kicking about, so you're really selecting the stuff that's whiffed about in the Younger Dryas, versus the stuff that's closer to in-situ. This is just my experience. But, still, PUR has jagged a micro-nugget.

Secondly, the sample size is either 50g post-sieving, or it's 200g. For the smaller sample sizes, the 30g fire assay would have taken most of the sample mass, and the 10g ME-MS61 almost the entire remainder. This speaks of poor QAQC in the field, let alone the lack of field duplicates and standards. It's soils, yes, but the company has no control over sampling biases without duplicates, and this is crucial especially around that 1g/t 3E PGE result. This is frankly laziness, it's not hard to do a duplicate every 20, and it's a phone call and 3 days to get some appropriate standards.

Should be a good sugar hit, but the low nickel, chrome tends to say this is not quite like Julimar. It's a different beast. I'm sure the cheersquad will be all over this like white on rice, but we'll see in August.