Ann: Drilling Success Continues at Guchab , page-82

I think its too early to make a determination of any accuracy either way. Cannot ignore what exists at this point with regard to depth and grade of visual mineralisation to date. Seems a very nice starting point with results that are rarely seen especially from surface and tied to a company with modest MC, tight registry and plenty of cash in the midst of an aggressive drilling program. How far and wide mineralisation goes remains to be seen. There are also substantial trench lengths in the area going up to 6+% from memory that still require testing at depth. Drill pad 2 is 500 metres away on easier terrain. If similar results occur there and show a link between the two the prospect will take on a different shape. The broad based 1% copper in soils anomalies seem very interesting as I understand they are on a flat plain on top of the range in close proximity to Guchab. Can anyone tell me whether an underground geotech target has been identified in this area as I cannot remember for certain. The copper discovered so far seems substantial to me and the company are of the opinion that these broad oxide zones are originating from a substantial sulphide zone at depth. To the negative posters I say this. SBR are in a position to drill whichever of the 30 prospects they like with all this available money right now, so they have plenty of options with noone restricting them. They could move the rig to another prospect tomorrow if Guchab results to date werent in line or exceeding their expectations. The fact they are continuing with Guchab is therefore a positive thing in my opinion. So, on the balance of probability should I follow a professional geological team with plenty of options available to them who are actively on the ground, or a few negative posters of unknown quantity who have never been on the ground. Of course there is an element of risk as with any exploration company proving up a discovery