Ann: Thick Intercept in Deeper Drilling of Conductors, page-90

Good Morning Silverlake and thank you for your query,
I am not sure I quite understand your question as I think the answer is covered in the body of my post you refer to. To elaborate however, readings taken using the XRF tool are from the surface of the core and barely cover a few mm. The average grade is calculated from however many readings one can take say over the length of the core containing sulphide mineralisation. On core containing veined or massive sulphides, normally there would more surface area to read from and would represent a much more accurate average reading than from readings taken from spotted, disseminated or a blebby distribution of sulphides. Naturally the larger distribution the disseminated grains are, a more reliable average is obtained, similarly with the size of the blebs and their distribution over the length of core that is being spot scanned. It goes without saying that with massive sulphides the averages will be more accurate still as many more spots can be read. Remembering that these are surface readings and massive sulphide represents the entire cylinder. There are also other statistical techniques which are applied to determine these correlations. I will not get into their applications here.

To readers who may not be familiar with the reasons for using Field XRF instrumentation, I add the following.

Readings and ore resource calculations derived from this sort of analysis are not acceptable for JORC purposes and unacceptable for bankable feasibility submissions. - At least this was the case when I was active in ore resource calculations - and whilst I haven't read the latest JORC code, I am reasonably sure this is still the case. Albeit, The use of field XRF instrumentation grade calculations is that it is quick, reliable and inexpensive method that is applied as a first pass method to assess the grade of a mineralised interval or intersection. These XRF values can be later compared with the chemical assay values to determine a correlation between them. Fortunately with the SGQ core it appears that the correlation of the two methods is very high and therefore the company can continue to rely on field XRF calculations to confidently report preliminary average grades of mineralisation.

Silverlake, I hope I have addressed your question adequately,