Ann: Assays verify high-grade copper at Big One Deposit, page-35

As far as I can tell from Appendix A - of the 24 rock chip samples collected in this batch, 18 of them had copper assays greater than 1% Cu. Obviously rock chip sampling on surface is selective but you can see from this map on page 2 of this announcement that they were all collected from surface along the trend shown in a red line (only samples >1% Cu appearing on this map).



The question really is how many of those 18 samples were outcrop from mineralisation sticking out of the ground and how many were grab samples from old historic workings and dumps and spoils that the historic miners left behind? i.e. not in original location but moved during historical mining? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that - its just nice to know is these highly anomalous rock chip assays are insitu or not.

Page 7 Appendix C Table 1 Section 1 JORC Code 2012 has some of the answers you are seeking - a lot of people rarely venture into the compulsory Table 1 Section 1 and 2 stuff with all the the boring details of where rock chip samples are collected, but the great thing about the JORC reporting code for exploration results is that most reputable companies do put all these details in for people to find. I have scribbled the crucial parts of the Table 1 where they describe their sampling technique (well crucial in my opinion):



The great thing about these tables and descriptions is that the left hand side is like a standard template and a reminder of what data the ASX and investors are looking for, and the right hand side is written by the company geologists to flesh out the details of what they have done and why, they must be completed and detailed - almost to the point of what brand of GPS the geologist was using, how weathered and oxidised the samples are, what rock and minerals were seen, what size sample bags etc all the way through to exactly what the lab did with these samples, its all tremendously boring stuff but it is a good way to see if the geologists are doing anything weird with sampling. And these tables are presented with every new drilling announcement, so you can also see anything weird with say wet samples, bad sampling techniques or poor recoveries etc etc - once you get your eye into what is normal industry practise and what is different to that.

Sorry to the people who already knew all this stuff but there may be people out there who aren't fully aware of all the details that go into these JORC 2012 Exploration Table 1 and 2. Sometimes I'm guilty of skipping over some of these details myself.