some intersting results to come..., page-10

re: some intersting results to come...t4p Process...

Well done mate.

As I keep saying...it's all there for anyone prepared to do the hard yards...in doing so, you can also clearly see the agenda behind the information flow!

Of course, plenty of interpretaion required, but if there wasn't, the price would not be at $3.37 and possibly north of $10 and not so attractive.

Yes, the potential is massive...which is why I keep saying they are literally just scratching the surface here.

We don't know yet of course, but with the resource widening with depth, who is to say this is not effectivley the tip of the iceburg?

The bottom line is this...at the end of the day, the ASX pulled CDU's 59mt announcment back to 25mt on a "technicality".

Many may not know this, but the issues raised by the ASX in relation to McCrae's 59mt resource, are (alledgedly) in dispute withing the JORC memebership themselves...it appears some feel the JORC "Inferred" category is low enough in the confidence scale that it should have allowed McCrae's resource outline to stand.

The previous work by CRA actually delineated the Las Mineral zone (and repeat parallel shear zones) as a potential "target resource", as it was conceptual in nature, based on incomplete geological data and only very few drill holes.

So...how can this same resource still be considered as a "target resource" given they have since drilled an additional 40 odd holes in it?

Clearly this is still a contentious issue!

Anyway, are we not missing the wood for the trees here?

Initial geological modelling suggested it might be there, more specific geochem modelling suggestes it might be there, surface geology suggests it might be there...and every hole drilled to date suggests it is in fact where they suspect it is!

At which point to you assume that yes...perhaps it really is there?

You don't need to dig up your entire backyard to know that the red dirt under your front yard probably continues to the red dirt under your back yard!

Of course you don't know for sure until you dig all the way from the front the back...but that's why it is called "inferred" and not "measured" at this stage...it has been inferred to be there, not measured!

Cheers!