At least someone is prepared asking the right questions, and...

At least someone is prepared asking the right questions, and ironically with a handle that well suits most on HC, who never ask to hear an uncomfortable answer lol. Hat tip...Yes, "time will tell" was sarcastic and my point, because of course everything posters speculate on can be shut down as too early, don't bother, can't tell yet if that's the attitude one wants to take.... but then what would be the fun or point in HC existing?

"...confusing your agreement with DRE teams decisions to drill a line "down the guts" where they have done so - as opposed to the DRE team agreeing with any interpretation you've had and making a drilling decision after the fact."... you aren't making much sense, but I gather you disagree with my interp that DRE team drilled that 107-111 line as an extension to the C4 hole49, 51 & further NW area of anomalous REE and Nb? Why else would they drill a line of holes along strike of a 'blob' of mineralisation (probably Fe-carb hosted judging by hole111, but we don;t know) other than to find out whether that blob got getter or worse with grade?

Unlike some others, I'm operating on the KISS principle... please provide us with another explanation why they would extend C4 drilling with 5 holes SE other than to test the extension of defined mineralisation? Seriously, no geo drills along the strike to find the edge of a geological boundary they drill across it. No geo should interp a geological boundary running almost 1km straight down the line of 4 holes, but just the other side of the fifth, when other holes immediately along strike and the areas geology says the boundary is probably perpendicular to the line. Seriously, tell us why the DRE geos would design 5 holes over 750m to test for a boundary by drilling along strike of the boundary they are testing for... I'm all ears.