Fundamentals, page-242

Great post VLV,

Also we should keep in mind that these grades are comparable to the historical grades right back to 2012, where massive grades were reported from wall samples and also from bulk samples from Cascavel, Mestre AND Cuca.

As I have mentioned before, but its important to keep in mind (and newer investors may not be aware of this), the previous bulk samples were only samples of the samples. So these small samples were subjected to intensive treatment available using assay lab processes. I believe this is why there was the catastrophic discrepancy between those historical bulk samples and the 2016 processing plant results.

Also as mentioned before, the recent 35 bulk samples (approx 39 tonnes) is the first time that bulk samples were subjected to beneficiation of gold in their entirety with the excellent results you have collalted.

This is why we can expect to have much greater confidence in the results. Also the fact that they come from all over the mine with the northern section producing excellent results ...when it was given up for dead.

Just focusing on quantity of mineralisation; it seems to me that there is very solid case that a substantial amount of mineralisation exists when we consider:

• the exploration target (circa $56Mil gold;

• The mineralisation results from drilling:

• the visible gold in the drill core CDP002 (from memory)
• The low likelihood of finding any gold in drill core when drilling coarse free gold (especially clustered), when we have found widespread gold particles.

• Historical Sample results (in addition to recent results)

• Lets not forget CDP052 reported at 1.6klm downdip with 3m of mineralisation AT 300m+.

Evidence is cause for optimism IMHO.

Cheers from Sake' country,

SJB