Looks like directors finally realised they looked ridiculous...

Looks like directors finally realised they looked ridiculous being the only decent sized explorer not to include section diagrams.

To inject a bit of reality into this thread:
+ Extensional hole 125 - probably uneconomic at 300m+ depth with no economic mineralisation above - so much for all the talk of being "mineralised from surface".
+ Hole 124 - infill, good length, average grade/depth - what a difference cross-sections make in being able to interpret results!
+ Holes 126/127 - look uneconomic - too low grade/narrow/deep.
+ Suggest you take Corgi resource estimate shown above with a large grain of salt - very optimistic suggesting 60% of ~800,000 ounces @ 0.35 gpt low-grade resources likely to be economic, reckon the high-grade resource estimate is also overly generous.

The only potentially economic area I see at present (circled below) which appears to contain the bulk of the higher grade resources.
Providing a long-section for this zone (yes is possible Corgi) would be very helpful in showing the grade contours by depth.


Suggest if you're holding on until the MRE that you understand the difference between measured/indicated/inferred resources and reserves/resources.

Cheers
Maverick