Ann: 105m of 1.94% Cu, including 16.6m at 10.2% Cu and 316g/t Ag, page-44

They are infill holes on 25m spaced sections between the 50m spaced sections that were already drilled out, that section would have the clipping wide enough to show the adjacent drill holes on the next section, all that cross section is telling me is that a lot of the historical drilling might under-reporting the grades and thickness, and the new holes on that section (one being an RC hole and the other diamond) are consistent with another in the location of the copper and the upper and lower contact of mineralisation.

This is an exercise in 2 birds with one stone here, actually 3 birds with one stone, they are exploring the possibility that a drilling method may bias the grade of the mineralisation and have this info to help them now its actually good news that the historcal drilling might be under-reporting grade (although quite common given the poorer sample quality from older drill rigs) although they will need to do more work on this, they also have a large amount of sample to work with to explore the Met geochemistry and ore comminution options and they are taking the drill section spacing from 50m to 25m spacing which increases confidence in the position and the grade of mineralisation and will help the resource modelers.

Without the Onedin metallurgical issues this would have been ripped out of the ground many years ago, you make a good point about this, and its something that people should look into.