Ann: Massive & Disseminated Ni-Cu Sulphides Intersected, page-70

@Polonium210 Great to see some exploration success and price rise, though I'm a little surprised by the market's reaction. Maybe it's a 'relief rally'... relieved they finally got something besides RE ball and chain updates (just joking, Yin has half a chance).

"Remains to be seen what the actual grade is"... just did the rough maths and each 1% Sulphides = approx 0.075% Ni and Cu, if sulphides are 45% Pent/Chalc split 50:50 between them (~33% Ni and Cu in each mineral). On that basis, 2m @ 90% sulphides = 6.75% Ni and Cu in the guts, 8m @ 3% sulphides @ 0.23% Ni/Cu above, and 4m @ 7.5% sulphides @ 0.56% Ni/Cu below.... nothing worth anything outside the 2m massive sulphides really.



"In terms of widths, depths, and extents"... just looked up the original FLEM survey release and it's not a large plate by any means. Bloody high conductance though, as you might expect so close to the surface from massive sulphides, so maybe not surprising first hole hit it at the modelled depth, and probably dead centre.

Now I'm wondering, if 2m of massive sulphide so easily identifiable reporting such a large conductive response, if it's not just a squiby little massive accumulation then why isn't the conductor anomaly much longer? Also, if FLEM works so well on massive sulphides here, where are the other major conductive anomalies you'd expect along many kilometres of FLEM surveys?

It's in my nature to be conservative as you know, but drilling just 2m of massive Ni-Cu sulphides in the middle of a small, screamingly obvious conductor plate, almost friendless from many km's of FLEM surveys, doesn't fill me with optimism. Aside from the fact DRE only get's to keep 30% of the project if it does have scale, what are the odds it does verses the probability it is exactly what it seems (20m x 10m x 2m thick blob)?

You can see why I left grass roots exploration before they kicked me out