Hi Paul, Your words are, as always, a balanced and thoughtful...

Hi Paul,

Your words are, as always, a balanced and thoughtful contribution to the discussion.
I think the problem which has arisen, in the form of doubts expressed by various people, is still contained in the lack of detail.

Take the specific case you have mentioned, where you criticize - very reasonably and logically - the Canaccord concern about a hole 500m away not showing continuity. You are right: we need to have better data, if that concern is to be clearly justified and proven. 500m is a long way, and only gives an indication.

But doesn't that exact same criticism then apply to all the calculations now based on drill hole lines at 400m spacings? If we question one, then we must question the others as well. Those widely-spaced holes have been used to derive the total estimates.

As you rightly put it, if intervening holes show continuous high grades actually are present, then the size and grade estimates will have substance. Right now, we don't know, because we don't have that data, and the Canaccord interpretation has, at least, a significant chance of being correct. They are the "messenger", delivering a note of caution, telling us not to go overboard on limited information. That should not make them the target!

Everybody knows there is a lot of graphite at Nicanda Hill. The question is: How much of it can we mine economically?

Cheers, Prime1