Where's the flake?, page-32

Hi Dalatta,

I agree, RC is not the best option for drilling and certainly not a viable option for obtaining metallurgical samples, but it is a very useful tool for rapidly confirming mineralisation. I questioned the ratio of RC to DD drilling at the general meeting in May. Brad mentioned the RC rig was just to test the presence of mineralisation, the diamond rig was to confirm grade and orientation & flake size. I am happy with this approach. It's comforting to see there is now a second diamond rig on site. Once the high grade zones are identified I would be expecting them to hit them hard with DD to confirm.

It's odd to see KNL have gone for the RC again, maybe they have some renewed confidence in the method? They certainly have been getting some decent grades with it recently.

For the record SYR is not 100% diamond but the majority of it is. As mentioned above they did start out with a few scouting holes as RC, much the same as we have.

Furthermore, diamond drilling is not the be all and end all of drilling methods. It actually has the tendency to wash away clays and fines particularly in the oxidised part of the profile due to the shear amount of water being pumped down the hole. Typically the more competent material is over stated. This can be devastating for a program where mineral enrichment occurs in the fines (eg; Nickel Laterite).

I have worked on a project where 900 nickel beneficiation variability tests were discounted due to diamond drilling washing away the enriched fines. The solution to this problem was to drill another 300 samples with sonic drilling. (low water, minimal fines loss)

If SYR have experienced fines wash or loss they could well have unintentionally upgraded the drilling intervals in their oxide profile by washing away the barren clays and fines whilst diamond drilling.

I currently believe a combination of DD, RC & Trenching is the best way forth.

Cheers,

John