Ann: Greater Duchess Copper Project Continues to Grow, page-74

@peter63 I had another look at this because it is not easy to understand exactly what they mean. I plotted a section including NLRC002 and NLRC004 and put the mineralisation on (not really a true cross section because it is not at right angles to the mineralisation). If the dip shown on the cross section in the announcement, below the flexure, is used then the intersection of the main mineralised zone in NLRC004 should be about 210-220m downhole. The intersection was shallower than this at 153-163m. What I don't know is how deep the hole was. However if the hole did not extend below 220m then there is a possibility that the zone intersected is a thinner new parallel zone to the southeast of the main mineralisation. This opens up the possibility of the main mineralisation being deeper and below the drilled depth in NLRC004. CNB interpreted the dip being shallower and therefore the mineralisation in NLRC004 would be directly connected with the main mineralised zone. If the dip reflects that above the flexure this may be the correct interpretation but it would appear the flexure plunges to the southwest and therefore gets shallower to the northeast where NLRC004 is.

My gut feeling is that this is a thinner parallel zone and the main zone lies a bit deeper. If the hole went to depths greater than 260-270m I am most likely wrong. My interpretation supported by locating the main zone a bit deeper would be quite a bit more bullish/exciting than the CNB interpretation.

OK, another request CNB. Could you please put the total hole depth on the table of results. Cheers.

Perhaps a diamond tail on NLRC004 to check depending on how deep the hole went? Or drill back towards the workings at 60 degrees. Or just do whatever you want, I have plenty of palm trees to sit under.