Ann: Classic's Project Management Plan - Approved, page-227

bill..certainly have more effect than talking to CLZ

It wouldn't hurt and and doesn't cost anything. May be able to see whos signature is on the POWs and excess tonnage applications under freedom of information act wa. But I think if someone first asked CLZ, and they were refused the information, that might form the basis of a FOI inquiry.

These are the implications for this new dealings discovery...

(a): Someone has probably been conducting alluvial activities on the tenement since 2018.... (Excess tonnage applications imply that POW's (programmes of work) are already in place and the miner want's to progress from shallow ground disturbing activity (metal detecting?) to deeper work).

(b):The signatory to those ground disturbing activities should be the person conducting the work (or a nominated agent).and that party is also responsible for the rehabilitation work.

(c): The work, as shown by drone, maybe (?) too far away from the trial pit to be swallowed up by by a future mining plan and so would be subject to ongoing rehab. work.

(d): As far as we know (based on what the company has or has not revealed) the alluvial work is being conducted by external players. BUT if the signatory to the work is also an inhouse tenement manager or project manager that changes everything. And might give rise to a conflict of interest and / or disclosure problems. TIMING is important.

All in my opinion, this is not legal or investment advice, This comment is based on my understanding of the Mining Act.... and my knowledge of detail which may be deficient. But I believe this is a fair alternative to accepting CLZ's words and actions as a complete and true record. DYOR etc.