To chris1983 and 2004,The analysis that I provided and used in...

To chris1983 and 2004,

The analysis that I provided and used in the comparison of the current drilling campaigns by VOR and AVB, included all available published data from their most recent September Quarter 2011 Activities Reports. The analysis was a relative measure (percentage) based purely on the drill core samples. There is insufficient detail provided in either report to estimate a resource. To do so, you would need access to detailed information regarding sampling technique, location, quantities, densities, shape, grade, geological characteristics, drill location and spacing and continuity of resource to make any JORC compliant resource estimation with any degree of confidence. We are not privy to that level of information. Even if we were, we would need to be deemed a "...‘Competent Person’ being a Member or Fellow of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, or of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, or of a ‘Recognised Overseas Professional Organisation’ (‘ROPO’) with a minimum of five years of relevant experience to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which that person is undertaking...." (as described in the The JORC Code 2004 Edition).

It is always dangerous and misleading to base any analysis on ‘cherry-picked’ outlier results as you can select any assay result you like to back-up your hypothesis (that is why I chose to use all available data ‘warts-and-all’ in the analysis). The analysis was based purely on a relative measure of exploration results and is not in any way a resource estimate (and should not be used in any investment decisions … I am not a geologist, geoscientist, analytical chemist or a financial advisor).

However, I know enough about sampling techniques and assay results (having been involved for 12 years in environmental research, assisting in the set-up and sampling from research trials, collecting, and/or recording/preparing many thousands of soil, foliage and fertilizer samples for either trace element or macro and/or micro-nutrient analysis by AMDEL, the State Forensic and other laboratories) to know that you cannot base your analysis and findings/estimates on a few outlier results. They need to be able to demonstrate uniformity and continuity of the assay results.

The fact that Avanco reported on 21/09/2010 the “9 metres at 50.49% copper from 18 metres” result and have never been able to repeat the result despite many drill core samples in close proximity suggests that the copper grade within the High Grade Copper Zone is highly variable and highly localised. If the assay results are highly variable within the drill core sample and between adjacent drill sites, it is difficult to prove that you have a continuous, homogenous mineralization deposit to base any estimation on with a high degree of confidence. The results should be repeatable and findings independently verifiable to include in your analysis.

Ideally, any resource estimate should be made by an independent ‘competent person’.

As I previously stated, I am an investor/trader in both companies, so hope to see both companies and shareholders do well.

If the analysis that I provided helps just one person to take a more critical view of selective reporting of results and inspires them to analyse the available data before making an investment decision, my effort has been worthwhile.

However, at this point-in-time, there are only two things we know with any degree of certainty: the published assay results of individual drill core samples; and that the directors will be extravagantly rewarded for comparatively little effort and financial risk :-)

As always DYOR … I am not a ‘Competent Person’ :-)))

Cheers,

GrayNomad