a lawyers response...

Although it appears I am on my own ("Downramper" alert), I find Mortimer's response to the ASX speeding ticket hollow and padded. All I can see is that this "brief case note" was undoubtedly drafted by a lawyer.

I note that the chalcopyrite mineralisation now varies from between trace and 5% content across the 15m interval. In my mind this now implies that the copper content could be quite low across the entire interval (maybe less than 1% average).

As for the response regarding "other minerals" - I nearly laughed. "Further visual assessment of the core suggesting that there are other minerals contained in it of nature and quantity as yet undefined." You're kidding - rocks contain minerals? This is revelationary. If the core at Lindeman's Bore had nickel in it then the NITON should have detected it. And PRW should have reported it.

Regarding the genesis of the mineralisation, again I find it an extraoridnary leap of faith so early on, that it "must be the gabbros". Where's the petrology reports supporting this "rational and reasonable explanation." Maybe I'll believe it when a couple of PhD's have been written about the metallogenesis at Lindeman's Bore.

As I've said before, I hope this is the real deal, but I obviously have my doubts...