Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-20

To TBulm as well:

If you get a 1-2m high grade dd hit where you had a 1-2m high grade channel sample what more do you know? You have confirmation but so what? You gain more information about one point in space but no more information about the rest of the mineralised structure.

As for a 2-3m void, much better to wander around in the orebody than to depend on a few points in space drilled directly adjacent to it. To your points:

- nature of contacts - what better way than to wander in the adit and observe said contacts, taste them, feel them, embrace them.

- dip / plunge etc. - what better and more reliable way than to measure the HW and FW from floor to backs rather than trust that a 50mm diameter disc gives a representative result. The holes are drilled from so close to the mineralisation that up- and down-dip extensions to information are generally less than 500mm. It is interesting to note that no information relating to the true width of intercepts is forthcoming despite that being a JORC requirement and despite the fact that most of the holes were drilled sub-parallel to dip. They have the surface trace of mineralisation so don't tell me they don't know the dip and therefore couldn't make an estimate of true width.

- thickness - what better way than to channel sample from the drive - lots of cheap samples to help with the statistics. Even the 5.43m drill hole intercept is 1.3m of good stuff and 4.13m at 0% Co, 0% Ni if you do the arithmetic.

- the information from the reported drill holes is no different from the info from the channel samples (it's in the same places) so what further assistance will the drill holes be in planning?

- why can't material from channel samples be used for metallurgical test work?

In the end what more do EUC shareholders know than when channel samples were announced 18 months ago?