Ann: Up to 9% Copper in Big One Deposit Assays, page-5

9m @ 1.42% - 4m @ 3.06% = 5m @ 0.11% Cu. Let's call it 4m @ 3.06% Cu.

315RC 8m @ 1-4% chalcocite become 3m @ 1.22% Cu become 2m @ 1.22% Cu true width
316RC 17.5m @ 1-7% chalcocite become 5m @ 1.06% Cu become 2.5m @ 1.06% Cu true width
317RC 12.5m @ 1-4% chalcocite become 4m @ 3.06% Cu become 2m @ 3.06% Cu true width

The hole logs were quite encouraging. The assays tell the truth.

I'm interested in the section shown in the release - Figure 3:

- why were holes 201, 202, 203, B07 and B25 left off the section?
- why is hole 315 plotted 25m south of 301 when it is collared closer to 14m south?
- why does hole 315RC appear to be plotted with a dip of 78 degrees? An email I received from Mark Biggs has the dip at 57.8 degrees?
- why does hole 316RC appear to be plotted with a dip of 78 degrees? An email I received from Mark Biggs has the dip at 71.9 degrees?

Were they plotted with the correct dips and collar locations, what would happen to the offset in the mineralisation caused by the interpreted fault?
If holes 201, 202, 203, B07 and B25 had been plotted on the section, what would they reveal about the fault?