Ann: Appendix 3Y - Change in Director's Inter, page-2

re: Ann: Appendix 3Y - Change in Director'... Walawski increased his position by 5.6%...

And paid 13.05c per share.

Sometimes it is not the size of the deed, but very deed itself that one should pay attention to.

Some will discount the act as insignificant...ans perhaps if this was an act in isolation I might also disregard it...but when you add everything up, I see it as yet another point of evidence that management are extremely excited by the discovery and doing their best to tell us.

When you break it down to basics...everything they have done...and said...has set them up for a major professionally embarrassing egg-on-face moment if results fail to please.

From mid/late last year they have suggested they were on the verge of a major discovery even by Peruvian standards...this has perplexed me somewhat as the size of the possible porphyry based on the distribution of breccia pipes relative to the IP is not large by Peruvian standards...as large as it still is.

I am wondering if they are hinting more at grade than scale...and in this regard I am thinking gold?

There are many signs...

They have extended the drill hole from orignally planned depths, subsequently refused a cash-grab for shares at 5.4c from their Chairperson, the MD has extended the escrow period on his personal shareholdings and in the process made a pretty bold statement about his obvious excitement about personally seeing the drill core...and another director has increased his holding by 5.6%.

Oh...and the share price has risen 4 fold.

The Company has also put out far more evidence than most would consider normal regarding the nature of the porphyry intercept...and in this regard I am prepared to forgive the rather poor delivery of the recent coore photo announcement (blurred photos made it look like they were hiding something), to a geologically focussed group perhaps not switched on as much as they should be to the importance some parts of the market would plac on eye-balling said core given recent events.

Geologically however, I think most would agree these are smart guys...perhaps an aximoatic statement given the apparent success in their first deep hole.

They simply would not so obviously set themselves up for failure.

Which leads me to believe they may actually know more than they have told the market, but simply cannot say more due to JORC reporting constraints, one of which would involve the reporting of XRF results for gold...which in my view would be far too risky to report.

There are of course may other ways to test for gold in the field...none of which however would be reportable to the ASX according JORC guidelines.

Anyway...the point of my post is...

Usually the most obvious and simplest answer is the correct one...so if ICG are not setting themselves up for an "egg-on-face moment", what are they setting themselves up for?

Cheers!