Ann: Over 1gt Au PGE in Soils at Phils Hill Prospect, page-246

A lot to look at so I went back to my initial posts and they do actually provide a few answers to the questions below, except a lot of the excerpts in the 2nd post in particular have been 'lost by HC for some reason in the post itself. I will go back to the two posts I posted before:

Post 1: Post #: 52126976 This post, written in March, was general in nature and gave some general information around what to look for in PGE type deposits as well as more generally copper/gold deposits. It also explains chromite signatures and in italics below taken from the embedded post with spelling errors and all the issue with EMs and why drilling.

Drilling will ultimately decide for PUR whether something is here or not for yourselves, and I suspect the just announced CR is to get funds for that purpose (but that is a guess). As to the Ann itself, in mapping, magnetic anomalies can be caused by several factors, hence only drilling decides whether the interpretation of a anomally is correct. If EM surveying techniques were 100% correct you would never have failed drilling program is my point, so understanding issues in surveying can explain why EM surveying itself, whilst positive is still not entirely accurate. But EMs do identify targets for drilling, which in itself is a benefit as at leats provides the target area for drilling, so drilling will confirm exactly what is there in the target area and at what widths, and time will tell if a viable discovery here is made or not. But having viable mines in the area, does provide an element of comfort around the EM results because you try to overlay those results around qualitative assessemnts around things you know in an area (where nearology comes into play)."""

Obviously having EMs that are supportable by soil results, and any overlay of historical data, does help severely in identifying your drill targets and area to further explore. Ultimately though the drill bit determines what part of the identified anomaly has payable minerals by grade, depth and width is the other point. My summary point, is essentially the area identified looks good, as per the recent Anns, but drilling will determine the extent thereof so I'll keep my fingers crossed for yourselves here. Potential certainly is a strong yes, outcome and confirmation is in the hands of the drilling Gods, and not all prospective areas identified for drilling return the goods is the other point. Soil samples simply aid a hypothesis but you actually want to be testing the orebody itself.

The above embedded post also talks about LTR's Moora drilling where they failed to find a Julimar signature but appeared to have found prospective copper/gold targets for further drilling activity - the soil samples that led to the identification of drilling areas were also interesting in that when they drilled they didn't find a Julimar signature that slides 16 - 20 indicated as possibilities by the way Post #: 47729693 but who cares if you find you have maybe a worthwhile copper deposit for example. The point is whether it is a Julimar or other type, ultimately one doesn't care as long as it has prospectivity and potential for mining activity in future.

Post 2 - as is becoming typical on HC, your historical posts seem to lose links/extracts embedded in them at times. A lot of your questions are actually answered in Post 2, which I will duplicate below from below ********** but actual post is here - Post #: 52131713. The only thing I have forgotten was what Ann I was looking at for what company in the first part of the post, but doesn't detract from the overall commentary. The rest I have duplicated, and the noteworthy parts are what I was referring to for Hartog.

Will also say, I know people compare deposits at time by length of intrusions say between PUR and CHN etc - just be mindful not all the tenement will ever be mined in any deposit, and usually the mine plan is a very small fraction of a tenement btw. To illustrate you can have a large area of mafic/ultramafic rocks but the area doesn't yield a mine, whereas other tenements with such structures and smaller intrusions compared to say another might - ultimately it is about finding commercial mineralisation, and it is based on how the deposit has formed and cooled for example

Your questions:

In light of the above and the embedded posts as well, I guess I can at a high level provide the following. It is high level and a lot to read, and I read it relatively quickly and not significantly indepth as well, for a stock I haven't essentially followed its development in any way - so take what you will from the below:

Question 1: Having PGEs on the surface is it good news? These results I presume have been overlayed over the EMs and the theories around what they think is happening with the geology (including whether it is an extension or similar style of intrusion as Julimar and CHN hopes Hartog too etc.) The real crux of the results is really what view do they have as to how the PGE's in the soil sample arose, which presumably would be a weathering event in itself given the undertone of mafic/ultramafic intrusions in the Anns itself etc etc. Soil samples may or may not be reflective of what grades and width you actually hit when drilling, because ultimately soil samples are about also how the near surface to say 50 metres of the deposit has weathered/leached and whether the samples themselves are reflective of actual grades below assuming the soil samples are not moved mineralisation from another part of the tenement itself etc etc. (We have all seen Anns in the past where the soil samples don't seem to accord with grades below, and Julimar is an exception to the norm btw and that is where nearology is important in itself).

From the 21/05/2021 Ann:



If you look at this statement from the 21/05/2021 Ann in line with my first embedded post above, and the picture taken from that post below, you can see why there is some excitement with the soil sampling. How the excitement eventuates drilling will determine. From my first embedded post I provide again the picture of relevance on how PGEs are placed within mafic/ultramafic - PGE mineralisation can either be a reef intrusion or conduit based, and soil samples alone don't give you that hint, but overlaying them with the EM and historical data can provide a guage:


Question 2: Looking at figure 1 of the 21 May 2021 Ann and figures 1-3 of CHN 25/03/2021 Ann for Hartog it appears to me your reported PPM for copper and nickel is stronger in certain parts, but the Cr returns are more variable. Seems CHN also has a larger identified area for Hartog returning plus 700 Cr than PUR, as well as having some parts plus 150ppm for nickel and copper, albeit the PUR results are at the start of a journey btw IMO, so will be interesting how they evaluate the results, and what the focus areas are, as well as where any infill samples we be taken from. The PUR results are a good start IMO btw nonetheless as well.

One point I will make as well is everyone exploring there keeps thinking the Julimar feature (the Gonnevile intrusion) extends into their tenements - that might be possible for PUR based on the 21 May 2021 Ann and extrapolation of the trend line but it is only a trend line in terms of Figure 5 and the excitement it might generate in the absence of exploration in establishing a trend line as fact . I think yourselves are about 50km from Julimar (Peak Hill), so nearology play to Julimar is still there but at that distance its ok to mention but you would expect features to differ in geology. In any event the more important aspect in the Ann is this from the Table - page 20 - the point been that the area has a host of mafic/ultramafic targets and that is the key for PUR and the others (having the right rock types). It seems the area has a number of these rock types, and my hunch is obviously the mafic/ultramafic rock types were formed by more then one geological event (meaning Julimar is simply a nice to know for yourselves), which also means composition of mineralisation will differ in any event.


For avoidance of doubt I do not hold CHN (or PUR).

Question 3: Your Ann dated 21 May 2021 is interesting especially that Figure 1. Certainly a target for drilling, and certainly having confidence something might be there. Reading the Ann and reading the extract from Post 2 below too me shows a higher degree of confidence around where to target the drilling campaign. The Ann is certainly bullish on what they think is there, with probably some good reason as well IMO, but I do go back to Post 1 in that finding somewhere to drill doesn't necessarily mean it will be an economic find. In geology, even if you have an extension of a formation it doesn't mean all aspects of that formation at different 'nearologies' will be economic to mine. Expectations should be kept in check, but certainly I would rather start from where you are starting btw given the results so far look promising. (I say this because generally speaking 1 in 100 exploration plays ever get to mining and that is what makes exploration always a high risk high reward equation obviously).

Question 4:
Doesn't surprise me. Just looking at LTR, they went looking for PGE, but so far are returning gold/copper in it assays. Not sure where LTR is currently placed in terms of where CVV is located, but if the PUR tenement abutts CVV it is a possibility in that part. Having said that and reading the CVV 6/05/2021 Anns they are talking about 'stringers' and çontinuity of zones' so that is why I am saying possible. I guess for PUR to test, and to be frank I haven't delved to much into this aspect in this post as, to go back to the start of the post, a bit to go through which I might revisit later..

All IMO and I am sure this post contains errors. A lot to look at and conceptualise and unfortunately haven't been able to devote the time needed to give yourselves a decent answer. But in summary, there is some good positives in the announcements as per my embedded posts and this post etc etc. Correct any errors, but at best it might help yourselves in doing further DYOR etc etc

All IMO IMO IMO

As a final thought, there seems to be a few here from alternate stocks who appear to think PGEs are with them only. I'll just post this map from North America I think, in an article in 2016 - PUR is in the right area, it is about luck now but the Anns look good to date, it is the drill bit that ultimately counts:
Locations of Deposits (mit.edu)



All IMO IMO IMO


*************************************************************

Redoing Post #: 52131713 replicated below written in March 2021

This paper here gives you an outline of what EMs are trying to do - this picture comes from this article.
Resistivity (ubc.ca)



The purpose of my post in part was to also say the the term mafic/ultramafic is quite loose as the rock structures per se can vary in composition significantly as well.

Now when I talk about MLEM possibly not leading to what one thinks this Ann and the tables essentially say that - b3517fa0-3b78-11eb-9b6c-6ed2e8d018c2.pdf (copyright link) - it provides a hypothesis and then drilling decided that some of the EM results were not great after all and note this Ann was just an example, as I could of used a few others. How good is the hypothesis also relates to how much soil sampling and the exploration techniques were used in combining the data to form the hypothesis but ultimately drilling decides anyway.

It would appear from subsequent posts to my post that the historical data seems to have some signatures, and I presume a soil sampling program is also on the cards here as well. Having said that, Julimar type signatures are nice but so are copper/gold discoveries in the area, which the Yilgarn is renowned for as well.

Before drilling, as I understood CHN, they did soil sampling (overlaying it on the EM results to strengthen the hypothesis) as well and sort to understand the chromite signature there to complement EM work at Julimar and therefore target drilling campaigns. (LTR certainly used EMs etc in targeting its inaugral campaign and had a mixed result in seeking a 'Julimar' albeit it did have some ok copper/gold mineralisation hits). But tieing my posts together, after again refreshing my memory on Julimar, here is some comments around CHN's latest target at Hartog. Some relevant paragraphs are also below and they show how EMs, soil sampling signatures, any historical data is overlayed to form a 'hypothesis'and then target drilling areas per se:

Chalice identifies new EM conductors at exciting Julimar project - The Pick Online Magazine (the-pick.com.au)




and




and




In terms of the last paragraph, note the wide Siemen results btw. But the point is there are other signatures that need to complement the EMs data (soil sampling/chromite signatures) as EMs per se can be impacted by various factors so I wouldn't be definitive of a 'Julimar signature' is my point at this stage and basically who cares if you end up say finding copper/gold

In my post, when I talked EM's you have to make certain assumptions around what is going on in the results you receive, hence why any historical data in the area and nearlogy aids a hypothesis as well as the need for additional reconaissance work before drilling, but only look at links for information only. I think the Chalice link above is good for those who don't really want to get in the nitty gritty of exploration per se.

- 4 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods (berkeley.edu)



And now that you have indicated some of the historical data and assays and presence of chromite (be interesting at what PPM), after my initial post, well I will keep an eye out. Seems interesting in itself.

GLTAH here. Looks like they seem to like what the EMs are showing as well and hence the CR and I suspect quick move to drilling.

All IMO IMO IMO