Ann: Up to 9% Copper in Big One Deposit Assays, page-14

@ozbuncheron - I haven't got into the detail myself of the discrepancies with the drill hole collar positions but the first thing I noticed was the omission of all the older drill data, either to simplify the plan and cross sections and not be confusing or possibly because they no longer have faith in some of the older historical data. It only takes a few drill hole collar positions to be in error and it can completely throw the geological interpretation into a mess.

There is only one cross-section presented, but that fault offset seems an unnecessary flourish and an attempt to possibly fit a dubious interpretation into "a story", whether this is a result of some errors in data, or some sort of mistake in the collar positions/section plane and or "clipping" within the section I can't say. Seeing as its all RC drilling and they don't have any geological/rock type interpretation on this cross section makes it even more difficult to understand. If we do have older holes plotted in incorrect locations then there is no point going any further with any interpretation or drilling until these errors are understood. Just a couple of collar position errors can make a mess out of any simple geological interpretation so imagine what a couple of errors in a complex ore-body would do to the interpretation.

When each new drill hole throws up new "surprises" it often means that there are errors or inaccuracies in existing drill data collar positions, drill hole trajectories and/or the geological interpretation or working model on what controls the mineralization are either dubious, or plain wrong.