I already know i'm gonna get hosed for saying anything, but i'm...

I already know i'm gonna get hosed for saying anything, but i'm gonna say it anyway. For starters like most others not happy with the BOD, havn't been for some time however I can't do it so i'll leave it to them or others. SP is disappointing, and there is definitely games afoot imo. I'm not going to harp on about that any further. Not a BOD fan is what I am getting at.

Re Sb at depth...In my opinion its not the Sb that's the target at depth. Generally speaking is the W mineralisation is highly elevated, Sb and Sb+Au from 1000m asl to around 500n asl transitioning to Au from 600m asl down to Sea Level. Most of my knowledge of the deposit is based upon the Dorrigo-Coffs Harbour Metallogenic Study by the NSW Dept of Mineral Resources 1992 - everyone invested here should get a copy of that and read it. Granted it is not a new study, but the base geology hasn't changed in...millions of years so in the 30 years since the study the base geology hasn't changed but we certainly understand more of it now.

The Sb +/- Au has been tested in a range of 500-1000m elevation above sea level across multiple known occurances and two rock host groups, Sediments and Adamelilite. The focus has been on Bakers Creek because of the Historic results of Au with minor Sb occuring to as deep as equal to sea level, from 600m elevation. You have to remember this location is the other side of the Dividing Range - its 1000m above sea level...So a known occurrence, with the target ore being present within a band that is (at least) 600m wide. Considering the other known occurances here within the sedimentary rock are at the range of 800-900m above sea level (Garribaldi, Ellenora), and 500-700m above sea level (Berretons, Sunlight), the question is, how deep does it go. The target, I believe is Gold at depth, and proving the IP concept works within this complex at Bakers Creek could yield surprises at some of the other occurances Think along the lines of looking for a Swan zone.

That in my opinion, is why they did the IP. Not to find anything new per se, not at the moment, but to test the concept of using IP to detect Sb/Au comparing the IP response to known mineralisation that's already been discovered. Theres plenty of mineralisation around this area, I mean the whole district is an Sb/Au/W district. You only have to look at the survey notes to understand that, North, South and East. The concept having been proven can be used to do preliminary investigation over the known occurance locations now to see if further drilling is warranted - so thats a plus. Brakens Spur is more southern than the main points of interest and lies within a different host to Bakers Creek - Diorite vs Sedimentary, however the depth (or elevation, depending how you interpret it) is the same as Bakers Creek. I would imagine the IP testwork they have done at Bakers Creek will be repeated at Brakens Spur prior to any drilling there - may yield a suprise. There are less occurances in the Brakens Spur area...is that because the area is less endowed with mineralisation or is it that it is undercover?

I havn't been following LRV that much recently being honest but iirc the drilling they were undertaking at Bakers Creek was infill anyway to build the case for getting the zone JORC'd or expanding the JORC I don't remember exactly. I don't know what the rules of disclosure are around drill results, if you even have to report them for an infill program provided the results are within the expectations of what you are testing anyway. Results would be nice but i'm not losing sleep over it. In two-three months if there's still nothing reported questions should be asked, the drills aren't instantaneous and they wouldn't be sending them out one core/log at a time. Patence is key here, however patence is evidently starting to run out for myself and others.