RE:RE:Hole #2 Ok. Thanks for the clarification Geo. The 27 October news release led me to believe they were targeting the same anomaly with this hole as they referred to it as 'the anomoly'. So they are testing a separate similar anomaly? They refer to the recently intersected anomaly as a 'high conductive' geophysical anomaly and the targeted anomaly with hole #2 as a 'high- chargeability, low-resistivity' anomaly. Is there a difference in the signatures of the 2 anomalies in your opinion? Thanks again. Appreciate your contribution to the board.