I've decided to post the theory I'm currently mulling over....

I've decided to post the theory I'm currently mulling over.

Please note : It might be wrong because we don't always get to see all the mineralisation assay results.

Anyway it revolves around Section #1.

Some of you might have noted the Mo reading's in some of the mineralised intersections.

The key hole at the moment is DDH01, it had 4 intersections, 2 with good Mo reading & 2 with no noticeable (or unpublished) Mo numbers. The 2 good Mo reading are above the 2 non Mo readings.

I know the RC data is not that reliable but 12R & 13R (drilled very close to DDH01) both had good Mo readings as well.

DDH02, 100M to the South of DDH01 has no noticeable (or unpublished) Mo numbers in the 2 intervals.

DDH03, 200M to the North of DDH01 has 2 intervals with good Mo numbers.

We await the results of DDH07, 200M further to the North of DDH03 & DDH08 which is in between DDH01 & 03.

My theory is that both DDH07 & 08 will have good MO numbers in both intersections and that what's occurred is a narrow mineralisation event from the North (possibly from the white star seen in figure 1 of the 15th June announcement). This event has caused the other Cu Ag sheet to buckle under it. It then rises sharply again as seen in the lower intersections of DDH01 & in the DDH02 results.

I suspect if DDH03 was deepened it would encounter the Cu Ag sheet.

So visually you'll have to re-draw the upper & lower mineralised zones, into 2 zones of Cu Ag & Mo mineralisation going through DDH07, DDH03, DDH08, DDH01 & ending before DDH02, with 2 more zones of Cu Ag going from DDH02 to the lower 2 in DDHo1 and beyond.

As I said, just a theory but worth bearing in mind for now as we wait the next assay results.

I suspect we'll get better & better results from the holes drilled to the East of Section #1 & find the deposit dips less than currently expected & thickens to.

More than happy to hear other peoples views on the above

LOTM