As someone who knows a little about IOCG deposits, here's my...

As someone who knows a little about IOCG deposits, here's my take:

The association of Cu with quartz veins and/or quartz alteration is not normal for IOCG mineralisation and alteration. They are quartz-poor systems.

The 3D residual gravity inversion model shows densities that are too low to be consistent with a large iron-oxide rich body. Systems like Ernest Henry, for example, have mineralisation with an average SG of ~3.2, significantly more than what's been modelled here.

This looks to be a magnetite-dominated 'system'. At the very least, the best sulphide is associated with magnetite-biotite alteration. But, as previously mentioned by another poster, this system lacks the early "red rock" dusting of feldspar, which is a characteristic of most economic magnetite-dominated IOCG (sensu-stricto) deposits.

Ignore the native Cu as it will likely be a processing nightmare.

Best part of the magnetic inversion model appears to have been tested.

The grades/widths in previous shallow drilling are not economic.

Best intersection is ~50 metres downhole width from 258-308m. If the mineralisation log is correct, and the interval averages 2-5% chalcopyrite, then the interval should average around 1% Cu. This grade is too low for underground mining, save for some amazing gold credits.

There's no evidence of breccias with an Fe-oxide matrix, from the low-res photos released. The rocks look "tight"

My guess is that assays would have to return 50m @ better than 1.5% Cu for this to get traction in the short term. It still looks a struggle longer term.