I am going to have to disagree with bucks resource estimate of aprox. 17 million ounces this time.

In the past, when I agreed on the 10 million ounce estimate I was being concervative, not knowing how concervative Micon would be in there estimate.

In fact, just before the report showing 14 million ounces was released. A certain very well known news letter I believe claimed 5 million and warned it could be much less than this.

I challenged them and said the estimate would be 10 million and if there was a surprice it would be to the upside. I will let that call speak for itself.

First of all, from a statistical point of view, there should be no top cut of 105 g/t Au and even more rediculous 97 g/t Ag. Those intersepts as a data point are just as relevant as any intersept less then them. By removing these data points, all one has done is build concervatism into the model for no practical reason.

There is a practical reason for having a bottom cut of 2.3 g/t Au. This is because there is a certain grade of gold at which point it is no longer worth or economical to mine. However, in my opinion this bottom cut is too high considering that up to 6m of internal waste is used to derive this number.

How this is calculated involves so many factors I will not get into it and it is not all that important for this post.

Lets just say that in my opinion and from my experience a bottom cut of 2.3 g/t Au which includes up to 6 m of internal waste is high. This is because you could conceivably have hit a vein 1 m wide assaying 13.8 g/t Au and it would just make the bottom cut. 13.7 g/t or any combination of grade or width of vein coming to this number would not. Just let me say that there is not a mine in high cost Canada that would not mine a vein 1 m wide at 13.7 g/t if it justified the deveopement, let alone in what could be a very low cost relatively speaking Ecuadorian mining climate.

Underground gold mining is called narrow vein mining for a reason. It is because if you had a vein running 13.7 g/t Au by 1 m wide of sufficient vertical and horizontal length to justify developing it. You would not be taking up to 6m of waste with it, this would be a very large waste of effort and money. You would be using conventional methods such as shrink, cut and fill, panel stoping ect. where you would only be mining a width of 4 - 6 ft wide. Thus a vein that is not economical at 6 m wide becomes very economical at 4 - 6 ft wide.

Unfortunately in my opinion, under the very concervative approach this deposit has been modeled in these veins will not be included in the resource calculation.

From the resource calculation modeled area, there are many stockwork veins that have not been included in the calculation and thus considerable ounces are not being accounted for.

In my opinion, from my experience, on a 50m by 50m grid, a deposit displaying the grade, width, depth, continuity and consistancy of D.D. drill hole results this ore body could easily be moved up into the Indicated catagory. In fact as mentioned before, I do not know of any mining company that bothers to drill on a tighter pattern than 25m by 25m. I know of companies that go on a lot less information than a 50m by 50m pattern.

There is also the nugget effect which is not being accounted for and is further being disimissed by having a top cut off of 105 g/t Au. In my opinion with a deposit displaying such high grade intersepts with many occurences of V.G. this effect should be taken into account.

The companies concept plan of using long hole drilling to totally mine this deposit is just that, a concept, in my opinion, a very poor one at that hahahahahahahaha. I do not know of any underground gold mine that is mined 100% by long hole. Most use some combination of long hole and conventional mining. The combination depends on many factors once again, however in my experience it usually involves around 40% long hole and 60% conventional give or take 10%.

Thus in my calculations I come up with a new estimate of ounces that is 20,000,000 + easily.

This does not take into account the deposit going to depth, which in my opinion is a sure thing. If the deposit goes to depth in my opinion a minimum of 20 million ounces could be added an this in my opinion will prove to be a very concervative estimate when all is said and done.

Regards,

F.F.