The assay method used in the lab hasn't been explained...

The assay method used in the lab hasn't been explained sufficiently for the base metal analysis in my opinion. We know that Au will be by fire assay as that is the traditional method used with a AA or ICP finish and stated in the JORC table..

The lab could have performed XRF analysis on the water bore hole samples which would be the same type of process as used in the hand held device but with better precision or they may have crushed and pulverized the rocks to a pulp and then added acids to the pulp that has dissolved the metals up and then been read on a ICP instrument that has lower detection limits for the base metals. Not defined in JORC disclosure table at rear of announcement.

pXRF are a guide as to what is there. being this is the first time the company has drilled here and now has a matrix of material the recommendation of the instrument vendor is wise - recalibrate the instrument using this as a basis. All instruments go through a self check and zeroing process but as the company has always stated the pXRF results should not be used as a proxy for actual lab results. Visual observations can tell as much as these types of reading but nothing beats actual lab results.

The drill and assay results will provide the answers as to what is down under the ground DUN have.

Having large meters of sulphides doesn't always lead to large meters of valuable mineralised mineable material but what this work does say is there is interesting things happening and the potential for mineralisation to occur is higher than in other areas where this type of mineralisation doesn't occur. It just doesn't pock itself out at the surface as traditional finds used to as this is all covered by other material (calcrete). This is exploration.