Good question. CuEq is not something you pick emerges once...

Good question. CuEq is not something you pick emerges once multiple metals consistently contribute economic value across the same system. At Minbrie, we are already seeing Cu accompanied by Ni, Co, Pb, Ag (and potentially PGMs), which is exactly how CuEq starts to build.

To put it in context, 3% CuEq does not mean 3% copper alone. It means the combined value of copper plus payable credits from other metals (Ni, Co, Pb, Ag, etc.) equals the economic value of a rock grading 3% copper. That level of CuEq places a project in a very strong bracket globally, especially when it occurs over thickness and continuity rather than in isolated spikes.

Early-stage systems rarely jump straight to a clean “3–5% CuEq headline”. Instead, you first identify metal associations, structural continuity, and thickness, which is precisely what pXRF is flagging here.

Those high Cu hits, together with Ni–Co–Cr and very strong Pb–Ag intervals, are not noise; they are vectors.If these metals continue to repeat across multiple holes and zones (north and south), CuEq naturally increases as lab assays catch up with what the system is already signalling. That’s how large polymetallic deposits evolve, step by step, not overnight.

So yes, areas showing combined Cu + Ni/Co + Pb/Ag are absolutely worth deeper investigation. That’s where scale is born, and that’s how CuEq moves from conceptual to reportable over time.