It's the first good deep drill test of Dianne and on the basis...

It's the first good deep drill test of Dianne and on the basis of the geology it would have been done anyway, but with good geophysical reasons to test at depth, it makes sense to do so. Two holes from the one site and if both are drilled will be downhole EM to help guide future drilling if a discovery is made. DDH1 a good drill contractor isn't cheap but will get the holes drilled properly.

The worst-case scenario is that there is nothing there and they can then concentrate on optimizing a future open pit and doing exploration on some of the other targets along strike and in the area.

The best case scenario is a repeat of the high-grade Dianne style orebody which would require more drilling but would steer them more towards a starter pit and then underground mining operation if enough tonnes are found. At the eye-watering grades we have seen at Dianne there is no doubt that there will be some economic component that would justify mining, it's just getting enough of these tonnes to justify the open pit stripping rate/underground mining costs and building a "right size" mill.

In answer to other posters who are talking about mining plans and commercialization already, there is no point in even planning a mine lease size and a project yet until they know if they have an open pit resource or an underground mine, or transitioning from the former to the latter i.e. how many tonnes, how much and what metals etc. Plenty of companies rush through feasibility and build an undersized/incomplete mill on a mining lease too small creating their own bottlenecks then pay for it later, by not investing in the mine plan and infrastructure for a longer than expected mine life.