Underlined section corrected, as well as other typos...

The AT-5 situation is analogous to AT-1 in most respects. Anyone who dismissed AT-5 was not reading the NR closely enough. When they drill, but do not encounter anything to explain the source or cause of the anomaly, as they clearly stated is the case with AT-5, that means the game is still on, as is the case with AT-1. To be clear, they hit very little or no mineralization, but that does not mean there is nothing there - just that they did not hit it. Just like AT-1, if its there, its probably at depth (below 150m vertical) and they will likely conduct more surveys (down-hole, ground, and VTEM) before drilling again (more on this below).

They encountered only minor sulphides over short intervals at AT-5. There is no mineralization of significance to be assayed, so there are no results pending. The results for AT-5 are simply:

"The two completed holes encountered granodiorite and peridotite as well as serpentinized dunite. The presence of highly serpentinized dunite and peridotite provides an inconclusive explanation for the cause of the geophysical anomalies detected at this location and more work may be required to explain them. The core samples contained only minor sulphides observed over short intervals."

I suspect that they will do VTEM on AT5, if they have not already, and if the EM response is favourable, which would mean its at depth, they will probably wait to see what FNC drills. If FNC hits at depth based on VTEM targets in a perodtite setting, then it is more likely they will at AT5, making it more worthwhile to drill the deep (expensive) holes. What is interesting is that NOT did not report the intercepts of peridotite, but they do not have to...

I think NOT might be waiting to see what FNC finds in a similar setting when they drill C-1 before they decide to drill more. AT-5 still has lots of potential... In fact, I would argue it has more now than it ever did due to the presence of peridotite with an unexplained EM anomaly likely somwhere beneath.

AT-5 is close to FNC, but it is not close to any anomaly on FNC property, therefore its of little consequence to FNC what happens to AT-5. This is where AT-5 and AT-1 differ. AT-5 is 1km to 1.25kms from the AT-1/C-1 area.

Also, for those who missed it, AT-6 is effectively being called a dud. They have intersected sulphides to explain the EM anomaly, but not the right kinds of sulphides. However it seems they have assays pending just to be sure.

Regards,

B.