Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice, page-136

Excellent.

I read the article and thought I'd randomly apply it to a company or 2 that had worried me. My jargon might be off in what follows cause I am no techie but bear with.. and let me know if completely off-beam....

AUT pronounced bonanza grades recently of 1020 g/t over .4m - and 809m down!

The total drill length was 1263m. Needless to say they didn't give a figure for the whole drill length so I reconstructed it from the metres they did report.

I ended up with 452 gram-metres of which 408 were attributable to the bonanza .4m.

Do the maths and you end up with a mean grade per metre of .0352.

That gives an HDISI of 1020/.0352.

Equals 28977x where "a HDISI exceeding 15x is derived after insiders make a conscious decision to mislead investors".

Now recognising the comment early on in the article that the grade threshold to include is subjective and noting that I had to reconstruct things from the subsets they did report, I thought it would be fair to recalculate using an arbitrary consistent grade of .9 g/t for the intervals that were not reported. I chose this because the lowest grade they did report was at .92 so I assumed for this exercise that all the non-reported meters were at .9.

This incredibly generous approach results in (.9 x 1249) + (452) = 1576g-m. Do the maths (1576 - 408) = 1168/1262 = .92.

Then 1020/.92 = 1108x where "a HDISI exceeding 15x is derived after insiders make a conscious decision to mislead investors".

My maths may well be suspect (welcome someone else doing the exercise) and anyway reporting .4 x 1020 at 809m down intuitively makes our antenna jangle. But in summary a good way of calling the BS.

Oh and I just noticed that they used .5 as their cutoff so even my attempt to be generous makes the report look much better than it could actually ever be.

Now my brain hurts and ALK hasn't moved while I have been doing this.....