Ann: El Zorro geophysical survey highlights gold mineralisation, page-261

To be honest, the PAC REPORT was fairly fundamental and flawed based on the following factors

• The Average $EV/Oz of the peers and the adoption of the $40.60 rate is no longer applicable as the valuation of the $EV/oz of the comparitve peers have all increased some 2-3x
• The majority of the list of the peer nominated are for deposit sizes less than 1.1 Moz, the EV valuation of a prospect of much large scale is valued differently to smaller deposits.
• The comparison assumes that all prospects are of equal status and fails to distinguish the qualitative aspects unique to each. For example, MEI's Jurenea is a small underground prospect that is in a region impacted by the wet season for half the year and the prospect is too small to warrant it's own standalone plant at the moment.
• The comparison assumes that all the financials are going to be the same, which is flawed, because there are so many factors which would impact this and ultimately the real valuation of companies is more accurately valued on a DCF method.

When the PAC report was produced, i guess it was ok for a VERY HIGH LEVEL evaluation and produced more for the average investor to gauge the relative valuation.

If i was to draw a comparison with a peer it'd be Victoria Gold & their Eagle Deposit or Golden Road & Gruyere. Based on the SCALE & SIZE of the prospect and not comparing it to Pin Dick deposits.

Below is a high level summary of the GOR Gruyere Journey from Drill to Production. Now keep in mind that they achieved all of this when the POG was at all time lows which slowed down their development. We are in the right place at the right time as as Zeff has stated "looking to quickly progress into Development"