Read what I actually said mate it’s 202% of the original value...

Read what I actually said mate it’s 202% of the original value which is zero, the sample comes in and is tested and registers 498ppm beneficiation increases that reading to 1007 ppm and increase of more than 100% approximately another 102% more than the original value which is 0 so there’s a 202% increase on the original value. It was poorly worded that’s all. Like I said these are excellent results and if a bit of poor wording is your biggest issue with the report then you’re desperately searching for an agenda to fit the bullshit you’re spewing forth