Have to say this new configuration is a pain as lost my previous...

Have to say this new configuration is a pain as lost my previous reply to you and typing this out again.  I went back to the 5 July 2018 announcement and looked at that Table 1 and Annex D again.  You will not be able to match the data because in Annex D they do not report the specific number for cobalt and copper when the outcome is greater than 10000 ppm on a specimen (> 10000 is all they put if the specimen is greater than 10000).  So looking at Table 1 in that Ann you will not be able to match the Co and Cu result in specimen 8811, nor derive the Cu result in specimen 8810, 8812, 8813 and 8814.

10000 ppm to equate to 1%, so as long as the ppm count has been done correctly (including compounding which is where you deal with the issue  btw- http://www.ausetute.com.au/partspm.html) then start with that.  Starting with specimen 8818, you do get the 0.41% for Co and 0.92% for Cu from Annex D to Table 1.  Similarly you do get the Co outcomes from Annex D that translate to Table 1 for specimen 8810, 8812, 8813 and 8814.  Just divide by 10000.

Having said that, really what is happening is distrust in management is continuing.  At the time of the 5 July Ann, I thought it was a reverse takeover which might be a good thing if get new management that are good on the GPP Board that could at least steer this ship in the right direction.  As you know I sold out before 30 June to crystalise the loss here so as to offset  gains I made elsewhere against it and haven't come back, despite frequenting the forum occasionally.

Exploration plays do put there best results in the body of the Anns and then let an investor trawl through the Appendix to see where those results fit in, but given trust is shot with GPP I would have thought they, on rereading the 5 July Ann, might say that these results are not a true reflection of all teh grabs.  They basically got essentially some of the best grabs from Annex D to provide this comment in the body of the Ann just before that Table 1:

“Six selective rockchip samples of mineralised mullock from theimmediate environs of the old workings  were submitted for assay tocharacterise the tenor of mineralisation, particularly cobalt grade. All samplesreturned highly elevated cobalt, copper and zinc with the highest cobalt assayof 1.95% coincident with the highest zinc result of 4.1% and with 4.38% copperin sample 8811 (Table 1 below).”

If you go to Annex D, most rock samples were nowhere near these results for Co and Cu, and like you I didn't look at zinc.  But these are rock chips and rock chips doesn't mean their is an economic resource there.  Drilling tells you that and whether you invest here is dependent on whether you have trust in management and whether you think they are providing you an appropriate summary of the risks relating to these rock samples.  And right now I just intend to sit on the fence and observe - maybe the new management is good, maybe its not but trust has to be returned to GPP before anyone would want to put any hard earned dollars in GPP IMOIMO IMO IMO.

As I said, keep an open mind but make your own decisions.

All IMO