Anyone selling is nuts!, page-7

Definitely agree with what you're saying about PY3 being the more mineralised. Not sure if you're aware of 2 things though re previous drilling:

1) A large percentage of historical drilling wasn't assayed for cobalt (even though it is found in all holes since then). If we allow for this at an average overall rate, it lifts the historical Co % from .08 to .12 (i.e without any of the more recent drilling results which then take it considerably higher).

2) Even the PY3 results are skewed by previous drilling not being aligned to the recently accepted Zambian Copperbelt model for the Fish River fault at Walford Creek. This resulted in many (most) of the holes being targeted wrongly, resulting in suboptimal results. Here is a link to a good explanation of this from the anns: http://aeonmetals.com.au/assets/upl...Zambian-Copperbelt-Style-Geological-Model.pdf

As you'll see, with this new interpretation of the drilling model, recent drilling results have been outstanding with the 25/10 ann reporting that each of the last 8 holes " have hit significant widths of chalcopyrite". (including bonanaza grades up to 10%Cu).

Put simply (for those other than Blythefan reading this), most of the previous holes drilled weren't drilled close enough to the Fish river fault or were drilled at the wrong angle to hit the PY3 sweet spot.

Despite this many still got reasonable hits. However, there is now a justifiable confidence that with the adoption of the new (Zambian copperbelt) model that most holes will now be optimal. The recent score of 8 sweet spot hits out of 8 holes drilled over a 1.7 km strike distance demonstrates this with the first hole assayed (263) getting CuEq of around double your % target for an underground mine.

The next step is to figure out just how far the mineralisation extends over Walford Creek (but safe in the knowledge that it is already a very profitable mining proposition). This may well prove to be a tier 1 deposit which is why the big boys are now watching!.