PUR - Charts, page-396

That is relatively correct.

By way of background, these two articles provide a nice summary. Ultimately where 'grades' become 'low', 'medium' and 'high' is also a function of capital cost, operating cost and price within feasibility studies as well as what other minerals are recoverable, as well as to the mining method (i.e. open cut or underground mining).

Making the grade: understanding exploration results - MINING.COM

Drilling Results - How Can You Determine if a Mining Company's Drill Results are of Low, Medium or High Grade - UndervaluedEquity.com

Also depth is critical to the above function as well - to illustrate if you have a mine say averaging 3 grams Pd/Pt, but the resource is within the first 50 metres of the depsoit, compared to say a resource averaging 5% Pd/Pt from 200 metres, some might think the shallower deposit is a better prospect (or at least economically similar) to the higher grade deposit.

Also be mindful that we are not talking just a PGE mine here. The Julimar area is also coming with nickel and copper, so ultimately what is good or bad is a function of the 'éntire' assay/resource as against just Pd/Pt alone. Note that the CHN latest METs are about copper and nickel concentrate with recoverable Pd/Pt in the concentrate.

Returning to teh CPN results, when I stated width was low, I was specifically referring to all the minerals in the assays (Cu, Nic, Pd/Pt etc)

All IMO