Consider that the intercepts are getting longer from E1a through c. Though not impossible, how likely would it be for the footprints of b and c to be the same or perhaps even less than E1 given the length of intercept? Therefore the likely outcome would be to assume that the mineralization below E1a would amount to significantly more than 3X E1a.

The question on the placement of hole 50(?) was interesting, being that it was around 350 metres away. Wes said given the range being 150 to 200 m, it was logical to move that distance away being able to cover as much ground as the range would allow between the two holes. What is interesting is that had there not been anything within the first 150 metres, they would have then moved only 150 to do the next whole for testing. Therefore they must have found a body of significant enough size to require a move roughly 350 meters away. This is just what occurs to me and my thinking may be flawed. Any takers?