Agree with @eksnip here. We’ll sort of. Surface outcrops don’t...

Agree with @eksnip here. We’ll sort of. Surface outcrops don’t guarantee success at depth.
The surface sampling was from a known location.
The outcrop of Uraninite/Pitchblende offered rock chips which were highly mineralised. The samples were readily available as far as I understand, as they were retrieved from previous explorers on the exact same location; a trench purposefully dug through the intrusion.
the samples from historical surface surveys were similarly impressive.
The key point here is that the source of the outcrop was never found with historical drilling.
When I refer to “source of the outcrop” I’m referring to the theoretical swarm of uraninite pods which have been known to emerge intrusions with breeches beyond the Unconformity(UC).
It is the UC intrusion which likely holds the Uranium mineralisation which we hope for. This is likely to be around 350-450m down if at all.
It is the intersection of this mineralisation which is potentially the game changer.
The point being made by @eksnip is that surface mineralisation has only some bearing on likelihood of discovery. Well, he is denying ANY chance of success, but I will grant him benefit of the doubt as to his intent.
Because of the scattered nature of these pods which can manifest themselves as outcrops at surface, the source can be elusive or even absent.
Vectors are crucial and we have some extremely encouraging indicators.
The reinterpretation of historical data along with the aero and surface surveying will lead to refined drill targets.
This may well be what others failed to do well and may be the difference between a stab in the dark and a calculated shot at discovery.