Member Info for Ella10

This appears to be a new application for a small scale EXPLORATION licence by a company called Siege Mining? !@##$%%^^&*

Interestingly a new rectangle has appeared around our wee yellow rectangle. It doesn't appear to have been seperated from the LEL yet but I suspect this may be a new application for a small scale mining licence. I wonder if this means the Artisan licence is having to be converted.

I wonder will Iceberg grace us with another super dooper hi tech image depicting the story so far...

Hi Shorn,
From RNS for end of third home
" The drill rig will be moved to drill the fourth hole of the programme to test the deposit further to the west and down-plunge."

I don't think it can be in the original planned position of hole 4 as that wouldn't be to the west of the other holes but difficult to tell.

Sounds good. I wonder should we expect hole 4 to be quite deep before we hit mineralisation and if so does that mean faster progress for the first part of the hole.

Lovely day :-) . I wonder if he has had any offers of "assisance" with the drilling. Those cores must be heavy.

He's issued all his RNS over there (hopefuy an assay one next week) so could spare a couple of hours here to make that Star sparkle before issueing an RNS here...

I hope Mr Bird is just adding the final sparkle to a snazzy RNS for release tomorrrow. What are the chances?

I think drill 3 must have had some great core. The best thing about the RNS yesterday was consultants getting options. I know I'm jumping to conclusions, but I believe our geo Quinton Hills was the consultant. I don't believe consultants taking options is the norm and these options were at 10p.

Does anyone have a feel, considering how massive this is, how many drills are likely to be required to take Racecourse deposit to JORC (asuming for the moment that we are talking the Racecourse prospect only). I know we are building on an existing JORC but I find it difficult to convince myself that 11 drill holes would take a deposit of this size to JORC but I don't have any real idea. I realise 9 holes were originally planned but we didn't know the size we were dealing with at that point.

I assume Quinton Hills will be under the consultants category so seems very positive.

I see consultants are included in this - I'm assuming they expect the assays to be pretty spectacular (for the location and size)... :-)

.....

Is still yellow :-(.

Thanks Iceberg.

Cheers both. Looks like we should all do very well here.

Iceberg (or anyone else that van answer),
As usual some good ideas.
I'm curious about your item 6. GLR was the first small mining company I became sufficiently interested in to do some decent research and invest in last summer. I bought into XTR on the first trading day if this year, when Bushranger started getting some attention, after doing some research over the Christmas period. I haven't been investing in small mining/exploration compa ies for long.
What sort of trade events are you referring to, who are the target audience, what are the benefits? No views either way on item 6 but I am curious.
One of the things I like about XTR and but also makes me nervous is CBs major involvement in his companies. I like the fact that he seems personally committed but I've also read a fair bit of his history in these companies and there are plenty of folk willing to give investors their views....

Good question Jamesiecakes. The accuracy statements about the XRF seemed to change between the time of hole 1 results and yesterday. However , in the interview he said they thought the geos time was best spent analysing the makeup of the core, that is what I've used to convince myself nothing is amiss.

Jamesiecakes,
Going back to a 2007 ASX announcement the stirike length was considered to be 1000m. I suspect the positioning of drill 3 was to confirm the width at depth and give more confidence of the strike length at depth. The depth also appears close to 1000m as hole 1 appears offset from the shallower mineralisation. We don't really have sufficient data about drill 3 to make assumptions that the width at depth is 1000m but it's possible that betwèen drill 2 and drill 3 it shows the width is closer to 1000m but your assessments of width seem reasonable given the info we have. I do agree with all the assessments that it is massive but I think a triangular prism would provide the best guestimate of volume at the moment. Alternatively, it's a cube that goes from wide at the bottom to much narrower at the top!!!!
MR BIRD can we PLEASE have an updated long section with drill sections in the next RNS.

Hi Rollinit,

I listened again and didn't hear him say it was a cube. We have 3 dimensions all close to 1000m. I think, from current info, its more like a cross between a triangular prism and a cube. Happy to be corrected.

It's not a cube...