Ann: 145m of Sulphide Mineralisation Intersected at Tullsta, page-24

I thought the release on the 21/07/21 was the Minalyze XRF scanner results - where they said they chose to use this due to the global delays at traditional labs at the time. In appendix 2 and the end of that report they stated:
"Significant interval samples are being cut and sent to MSAnalytical an accredited laboratory for analysis"

My reason for asking is that the Minalyze XRF scanner has a resolution of ~10cm, so individual readings are highly susceptible to whatever mineral/s exposed under the instrument window at the time.
This is evident by the results table that they included at the time - with highly variably Ni/Cu readings over 10cm intervals. however the did show a calibration graph from a few samples form 12DDTS006 that compares the Minalyzer XRF data to lab data.

Was just curious, it would be nice to know how the calculated Ni/Cu intervals from the Minalyzer XRF compared to the laboratory wet-chem assay results, because as they said:
"Minalyzer XRF scanner has the potential to be under-reporting the actual higher Ni and Cu grades which will be confirmed once check assayed with traditional laboratory analysis"

anyway - somewhat off topic, regardless I'm happy with the results today.