What we know/assume from the PR:
They have had initial REE results from the second hole and based on those results have sent the samples to another lab to get more accurate REE concentrations. The initial lab package they probably used did not give the necessary detection limits, therefore that is why they only reported the upper part of the second hole in this PR. What that means from the lower part of the hole is anyone's guess.
For the first hole, they report sub-economic grades of Cu (i.e., no massive sulphides) and only a brief description of the remaining part of the hole, but at least indicated the source of the anomaly. No assay results were provided, except to mention the sub-economic Cu. None of this sounds positive to me.
The wild card is the additional claims? If they were truly "claimed" yesterday before releasing the results, it would suggest something positive. Unfortunately, I do not see it in this PR... do they have another PR up their sleeve before COB?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
