I'll agree it " more than tripling the known down dip extent of the mineralization to greater than 900 metres" is encouraging news.

However extending that statement, or changing it, to be 'tripling the size of ore body' is misleading as it certainly doesn't mean that and we're a long way away from having enough information for anyone to state with any certainty effect this will have on the size of the E1 ore body. Will the final shape be a pumpkin, a carrot, a turnip etc.?

I think everybody wants E1 to be at least triple currently know size because we want close to what was originally expected of this rich deposit. It certainly was drilled enough to get some idea of it's 'shape' and unless the deposit is barbell shaped the deep deposits might not be same overall size as identified deposit. Until more results are in it's hard to imagine anyone including Mungall doing any projections indicating size at depth. Right now it's more important to ask 'when' will they and we find the answer? A few weeks or a month or so?