Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-11

What is your definition of a miss Timorlad?

I'm doing some work looking at Mn grades around the world. Whilst grades of 64% are clearly outstanding, no one should expect confirmation of such grades below ground. Credit to ESR, they have already highlighted the likelihood of Supergene enrichment.

But these days, thick intersections at plus 20% would still be an acceptable result?

Let's look at a couple of examples.

Electric Metals Ltd (Minnesota, US) own the Emily Manganese deposit. They trumpet Emily as the highest grade Mn resource in North America.
The deposit is a manganese-enriched Banded Iron formation (hard as).

The two Resources that make up Emily are:

6.2Mt @ 19.3% Mn and 22.4% Fe. The other is 4.9Mt at 17.5% Mn and 20.4% Fe.

By our standards, hardly startling.

Another example this time in Australia is the so-called Mn developer Element 25. They are targeting 1.1Mt pa of lump concentrate production from their Butcherbird holding. Described as Australia's largest on-shore resource (excluding Groote Eylandt which is off-shore) they have a resource of 274Mt @ 10.0% Mn.

Another example is the OHM and Bryah Resources joint venture at the historic Horseshoe South Mn mine.

Their best intersections include 15m @ 26% Mn from 3m; and 12m @ 25% from 7m.

================
In conclusion, I just wanted to open some discussion as to what reasonable expectations would be once the drill program begins.

I also think it's important to restate that no one should be expecting confirmation of super high grade like 60% below surface. Supergene enrichment has undoubtably played it's part.

I was involved some years ago in the painful failure of Aurora (ASX:ARM, now ANX). Supergene certainly gave the wrong impression of what they had underground with the share price tanking big time after drilling.

We certainly don't want a repeat of that! Maybe ESR management need to express their view of what success would look like long before the drill rods tart turning.