Ann: Major Extension At Mount Hope Central - 36m @ 2.2% Cu, page-26

I agree @eastwest101, the methodology that has been applied in generating the 1m averages is appropriate, or if nothing else it’s certainly been qualified so that people can make up their own mind.
I can see peoples concern over the headline ‘intersection’ if taken purely at face value then it can be misinterpreted…..but that’s the case for pretty much any headline…the devil is always in the detail.

At the very least this offers a perfect test case opportunity to assess the validity of announcing pXRF results on drill core for this style of mineralisation. Having both the 1m (5-reading average) pXRF results and the photos allows for a useful overlay….and on this aspect you cant fault CNB, they have provided all the info that is needed for people to make their own informed decisions. It will be interesting to then compare to the final assays....both in terms of raw numbers AND how appropriate the headline is/was.

As you (and GeoFiji) say the core photos don’t lie….and I personally have no issue with the supplied numbers, acknowledging that the final assayed results may be plus OR minus a certain percentage (insert your own number here), overall I can see it being within ~10-15% (just my own opinion) with greater variability between some intervals...as examples; 559 to 560m with pXRF average of 0.73% Cu…I wouldn’t be surprised if this interval assays higher, conversely 580 to 581m with average pXRF of 3.8%...i can see this assaying lower.