Ann: Results of Annual General Meeting , page-82

Hi Kalenn, H-B,
Sorry, can't shed much light on Brazilian operating costs though my guess would be as low as 1/3 Aussie costs. I still think contract mining will be the way to go initially as it takes years to build up a solid mining infrastructure (engineering and maintenance depts) and train UG staff appropriately. CM obviates the need for capital expenditure on jumbos (UG drilling machines) boggers, loaders and haul trucks.. all prohibitively expensive pieces of kit with high maintenance demand, cost, & low shelf life.

I'm not a geologist myself (they find the stuff, miners blow it up, I turn it to dust and extract the 'shiny' bits it to bits..): I don't think EM anomalies are necessarily indicative of value minerals being present. They are literally an indication that there is a difference of intensity in the magnetic field patterns in that area. This could be as a result of the presence of Iron based minerals some of which might include pyrite, arsenopyrite and, ie FerroSulphides. Where these exist there is also the possiblility of base metal sulphides being present too; chalcopyrite (copper/iron sulphide), sphalerite (zinc sulphide) and galena (lead sulphide) being the most common.

Initial drilling targets would have been chosen as a result of analysis of soil samples collected from the entire EL. Subsequent drilling enables 3D mapping to give a clearer picture of structure.When superimposed on the structure map, EM anomalies from airborne surveys sometimes enable the Geos to understand the sequence of geological events a little better and possibly to identify substructures worthy of further investigation.

Short answer is the understanding of geological events is complicated and EM anomalies have to be understood in context and not regarded as guaranteed indicators of value minerals present.

BT