Ann: Confirmation of Large-scale IOCG/SEDEX Targets at Frewena, page-267

Blue,

It’s similar to chk where they had a few metres at 2%cu and 60m at .1%cu. Its hype around location to oak dam west. They even had 1m at 14%cu but it’s at 1km depth.

Our core at Frewena is far more juicier as I like to say, the sulphides really do show and that is the important part. Once assay results are known it will be our turn in the spotlight and it probably goes deeper into higher grade.

The issue with many IOCG deposits is that they are blind (buried at depth) and that geophysics alone don’t tell you where the sulphides are. The geophysics tell the likely right host rocks exists and the right conditions for sulphides probably exist too. So the discovery hole drilled by GA is such a massive free kick for icg. The various styles of known IOCG deposits require different interpretations to geophysics. So when sulphides are discovered it’s pretty good news, sometimes it’s only a few metres away where it really opens up.

The original historic hole at oak dam west was barren, but it had extensive IOCG alteration with REE that were later assessed to be vector to the discovery hole. In fact the original hole was mostly drilled through altered sedimentary units as bedding was still evident. Drilling these geophysical features do require a few holes, at OD it was later found that grade was controlled by the faulting with in the breccia unit. It’s why after each drill you need to relook at the geophysics and tie in the results of the drill to determine whether the hole was optimally placed and whether mineralisation is likely to extend/improve or drop off and where other likely locations exist in the acreage.