I am somewhat aware of the different nature of the Chromiun vs Zinc, and that is why I was careful (I hoped) to not mention the Chromium in association with the hydrothermal discussion. However, I could have made more effort to distinguish. Also I could have made the suggestion that the mineralization difference in deposits found to date show huge differences in mineral composition, and that the Chromium, though associated more specifically with Ni and in turn with Cu as well, is NOT present in reportablly significant levels at Eagle 1. This was to some extent what I was suggesting with respect to different events and more specifically with respect to reworking of deposits over time etc..

Additionally, though Co is also associated with Ni deposits Eagle 1 has no mention of Co but PRB (just a few hundred meters the the north) does note notable if not significant Co via their Ground Geochenical soil analysis conducted this past fall.

Consequently, every different public announcement and info release made by each company over the years (that I have been able to locate) gives something different and in most cases very different . This but exaggerates the intrigues, challenging the creation of a half way decent Geological Model to account for and predict.

Old Joe

PS: To express significant rationalization is but too time consuming and thus getting most, but by no means all, hopefully pertinent points of consideration is in itsself challenge enough, at present, at least.