Ann: Section 708 Notice, page-18

Yes, and it's a form of insurance. Deciding that line, between making sure you raise at the sweet spot, ie not too much too cheaply (which is Limitless's point), and, not too little while the price is respectable (which is sort of DrJ's point), is a fine judgement call. We have 4 simultaneous campaigns running (plus others lined up for later years). Frewenas, Jean Elson, MaCauley and Peru. That requires significant expenditure even if they do run on the smell of an oily rag but it also dramatically increases the odds of success. Especially when we know there is mineralisation at all four, we just don't yet know if it is economic.

From where I sit they are managing it well, the raise now or raise later dilemma, but I would point out that my memory was not $8M for Peru. That was Peru plus Australian campaigns and options were meant to cover Aussie program as well. Or is that just my bias showing? I thought Peru allocation was either $4 million or $5 million? Obviously the rest for Aus where all 3 projects have at least some mineralisation at surface.