I know you read my posts carefully, and so you should know I...

I know you read my posts carefully, and so you should know I don't ask many questions without then answering myself. My opinions are research based, I join the dots and come up with probability based outcomes... there really aren't any questions Thomas could answer that aren't awkward to put it mildly. As he made clear in the webinar, he worked up a desktop model like I've been doing and would have come to similar results as I have years ago. The differences between our perspectives are nuanced and a matter of optimism. Put in high enough commodity prices, hope for drilling to uncover a thicker, higher-grade area to mine, discover another great deposit elsewhere while proving up the Reefs etc... there are usually two sides to a coin.

"worthy of merit" i can be a long way from economic. Experts like kirby love what they do and enjoy getting paid good coin to get into another interesting layered mafic intrusion if someone's going to pay for it. Why not, even if it looks uneconomic now the next drill program might hit some remobilised structurally controlled pegmatoid that's an order of magnitude better and it's game on, and they're getting paid to be on the ground floor.

Problem is, there are so many factoids around these Cu-PGE+ Reefs uncovered long ago, so many peer comps with "existing metallurgical flowsheets" to follow, that the answers will drop out soon enough, maybe even before actual met work is done. It's a great strategy... 'discover' new reefs never before seen int he world, drill some holes and wrap huge ETs and then MREs around it, do some met studies but not very quickly (which the government will refund 50% as tax credits), sell the economic potential using unrealistic high contained metal equivalents, use the excitement to raise funds for exploration to try and snag a real contender at higher prices and less dilution... cross fingers you get lucky.

"Is management honest, capable & reputable?"... does gilding the lily and using poetic license in the narrative make that a yes or no?
"Is this a play on retail?"... does withholding knowledge of magmatic Cu from the market for 6 months make that a yes or no?
"Is the company undervalued?"... what chance the Reefs become economic this century, what is the value of an exploration only company?

Hard questions to answer, and not simple yes or no imo. If you understand the competitive pressure on ASX explorers, similar to politicians, in competing for investor interest and funding at minimum dilution over the journey, then you understand management's job is to be perma-bullish and gild the lily.... or as an old mentor likes to say, "keep up the BS until BS becomes a reality". IMHO, once investors understand how to read between the lines at what the real prospectivity of a project is, the earlier they can do it with confidence, the better they will be able to time their entry and exit into explorer developers. Not to say set and forget doesn;t work, backing the right talent doesn't work, or simply following TA, news flow momentum stocks and ignoring the fundamentals doesn;t work... it's just that's how I like to do it...

Dear me, got very philosophical this morning. "One of you - or both of you are going to be correct - it will be years till we know."... very true, but the trick is working it out earlier than when it becomes obvious to the market. This is a really interesting project for my tastes, simple geology on the deposit scale, but very complicated from a processing and economic standpoint. The attraction of high-value multiple metals is clear and simple. The problem of thin deposit long way from anywhere makes it easily dismissed. I agree it's potential needs careful analysis before making judgement, so i will go back and refine my desktop study for more veracity to make sure I haven;t missed something that might swing the outcome.

GLTAH