I read that paragraph too (and the below is not directed at you). Below are just my general observations - I am not a holder but have posted here a while back.
1. They have found probably considerably more ore at surface than what they thought IMO. They need to determine how far this shallower copper stretches, as initially the operation will be open pit before an underground mining section (should viability actually be found to be positive here and there is still a long way to go there). That is by having more shallower copper potentially there the need to go underground is put further into the out years.
2. 76 metres at 2% Cu is good, just need more of it.
3. AW1 probably need to inform the market around how the surface layering may impact the road to 'commerciality' of the deposit, and by that I whether their development theory (and obviously that means before feasibility studies are conducted to actually determine feasibility) has changed. That is what is its theory now - and yes there is a way to go before proving viability here but this drill campaign has not firmed their initial theory IMO IMO. It would appear to me the increased results at surface by grade and length doesn't appear too me what they were expecting (i.e. they were expecting shallower results at surface and hitting the higher grade stuff from 300 metres etc (given depth of drill).
Negatives:4. Deep drilling has not encountered the 'hypogene' hypothesis they were operating under, which is my interpretation. Note: AW1 has not used the 'hypogene term' in any of their Anns but that is how I was interpreting previous Anns btw based on previous work in the area. The market response was in that regard as it would appear the market viewed viability dependent on hitting the 'deep ore' given that has been a message that the market appears to have interpreted from AW1 itself. Refer attached post where I posted previously in AW1 around my interpretation of the geology here -
Post #:685772195. Location and the fact drilling won't happen again to 2024. Today's Ann is not great in closing out a drilling cycle before planning for the next drilling campaign starts, given deep drilling results were poor. (Point 1 becomes a key now as I suspect there will be more short term pain, unfortunately, unless sentiment is turned around by management been a little more proactive in what they are now thinking).
Today's Ann is the typical ups and downs in exploration plays. These are the ups and downs in mining, noting 1 in 100 exploration plays ever get to mining. That is the uncertainty this Ann has created. The market's perception (given the lack of hitting decent copper mineralisation at depth) is that this is unlikely to be mined. I think the market has not focussed on the near surface results as yet (and what that might mean with more drilling encountering near surface grades) but the point been AW1 itself was focusing the market on the 'depth results' and these were poor. I suspect AW1 will need to update the market around what its views are now relating to possible development here, as I suspect they have changed since these drilling results.
I also wonder whether they would be better placed to see whether their original theory holds by re-enterring ST 23-01 and drilling it deeper to see whether copper mineralisation is encountered. Can they do that now???? To understand the deeper mineralisation they need to get a thorough understanding of how the near surface aspects have formed (if they are operating under a 'hypogene theory' (which is IMO IMO IMO and inerpretation of some of teh previous Anns).
All IMO, but the other positive here is management is proactive and they are drilling (which is more than what some lifestyle companies operating on the ASX can say). Ultimately the drill bit decides fate. AW1 will go away and work out a 'new theory' and see whether they can further add resource (and hopefully find resource at depth).
Ultimately though, it is a rarity in the exploration game to hit the 'jackpot' on the first few drills btw (finding a resource often is a needle in a haystack despite even using EM/DLEMs/mapping techniques etc etc. Mapping, magnetic anomalies can be caused by several factors, hence only drilling decides whether the interpretation of a anomally is correct. If EM surveying techniques were 100% correct you would never have failed drilling program is my point, so understanding issues in surveying can explain why EM surveying itself, whilst positive is still not entirely accurate. But EMs do identify targets for drilling, which in itself is a benefit as at least provides the target area for drilling, so drilling will confirm exactly what is there in the target area and at what widths, and time will tell if a viable discovery here is made or not. Point of this paragraph is really stressing a point that it would be interesting when the new drilling campaign starts how management have refined their geological interpretations from this drilling round etc etc
A long post that probably says little. But I had a VB in hand, which was good.
All IMO and GLTAH.
