Yeah, just in relation to 1) that probably comes back to the...

Yeah, just in relation to 1) that probably comes back to the accompanying database documents that you’d have to assume accompanied a royalty like that. It looks to me like these elusive WMC Diamond Division Samples are still under wraps somewhere. I cannot seem to locate any point source for them in any public dataset. Also, just realised I didn’t quite highlight this paragraph correctly in the post above to emphasize the important points, the last sentence in particular.

So the 18 bulk soil samples collected by WMC in 1996 were done so as a follow-up to the older WMC-Diamond Division Samples that had anomalous gold…but importantly the bulk samples here didn’t reproduce any gold anomalism! it seems to be the additional soil sampling that highlighted the gold trend over tropicana itself, all of which appears to be publicly available?

The location of these bulk soil samples is shown on the plan below;


If these bulk samples highlight the approximate location of the older WMC-Diamond Division samples, then it looks like they were not in close proximity to the eventual discovery...and if WMC themselves said they could not replicate the gold anomalism then i don't see how it can be argued that they have led to a discovery...but that's just my opinion.