@ozbucheronThanks for your reply. "As I remarked a few posts up,...

@ozbucheron

Thanks for your reply.

"As I remarked a few posts up, 11 and 12 should be 6m apart on the plan but are 750m apart".

Yes, it was your analysis that prompted me to cross-reference some of the location coordinates with the map. I have to say, it's a bit of a mess. I hope Ged Hall reads this board and the company can do better next time. If not, I shall contact him by email. The problem for an investor is whether to believe the coordinates or the map. It makes a big difference. For example, in the 6th Nov 2024 announcement CastilloCopperLimited_16272731.pdf Figure 2 (Cusp) and Figure 3 (Bobs) show extensive rock chip sampling already carried out.

On appendix A, Figure A1 (Cusp) shows very high Niobium and high HRE while Figure A2 (Bobs) shows high Niobium and very high HRE. With consistently high Uranium signature for both sites. I was therefore interested to see assays from between the two locations. But the confusion in the latest announcement make it impossible to draw any conclusions.

Regarding your other points. No, I cannot make any considered judgment on Big Jay given we've been told next to nothing other than the elevated Yttrium levels indicative of potential for Heavy Rare Earth (HRE). As you said, why not just give us the data. I assume the two Big Jay assays are unimpressive, but that's OK, we're big boys and girls, we can handle it. It would just be nice to feel that the company isn't cherry picking to create a story. As you said, there's only 13 assays to report, they managed to find room to include the 4 assays already reported on.

Also, nothing from sample 6 and 7 at Dune. Again I assume unimpressive so quietly dropped from the report.

To be clear, I have not turned negative on Hart's Range. I'd just like some transparency. Not every assay result is going to come back gangbusters and investors know it is way too early to draw conclusions either way. I am still looking forward to the heliborne survey. One of the reasons I'd like to see the omitted assays is to check whether the Uranium signature is correlated with high Niobium/HRE mineralisation. We can only make that assessment by seeing all data, good and bad. What is the likelihood of false negatives If the heliborne data shows areas of uranium concentrations? We don't know because we've not seen all the data.

So Ged Hall, if you do read this board, please take the opportunity to include an appendix on full assay results on ALL samples taken to date. Thank you.