Designz ... I've made an effort not to focus on the Amazon part of the equation ... mostly because it seemed every time you brought up diamonds ... it drew out the detractors on Stockhouse to start chiming in on Kovacs ... Dupuis and the 'suspect' grade that was reported in the tech report. I say 'suspect' because I believe it to be flawed for reasons that I've gone over numerous times on that forum.

Chris Morgan is a very 'deep' exec ... his background is impressive and the group he brings to the table just as impressive in my view.

The technical mine engineer experience behind the group will pay dividends for both the Manganese and Diamond projects ... and to be specific ... I am waiting for a re-visit to Carolina/Chiroc to get some better understanding of what went on and/or wrong during the partial Carolina bulk sample. I understand that Morgan felt the sampling setup may have been misguided ... but that's my interpretation of a discussion I had with other investors ... I don't want to commit to it as fact ... but ... I do feel it is more than likely accurate.

I told you all that I was at the AGM and seeing that Roumieu was there as well ... he may be able to verify what I am going to tell you.

When the presentation turned to the Amazon portion ... Morgan took the reigns to describe the operation. I was throwing out questions from the back of the house with regards to grade ... gravel layers ...etc.

One question in particular had Morgan give back an answer that gave me pause ... for a second.

I asked him about the distribution curve during sampling of Parauna ... whether it was coarse or what have you.

Morgan wasn't expecting the question me thinks ... as he kind of stumbled at first and asked me to clarify my question. I don't think these guys are used to having average Joe asking about technical specifics from the back of a crowd.

Anyway ... Morgan came back with the fact that alluvials produce smaller diamonds than hard rock ... that I knew ... however ... he followed that up with they were averaging 0.5ct out of sampling.

I said "really" ... and he repeated ... of course I then added 'WOW'.

Morgan went on to suggest if I wanted more specifics as to the sampling he would send it out upon my request (I've mentioned this before)

Hopefully Roumieu can recall that specific dialogue to validate my words.

I was taken aback a bit by Morgans disclosure as I've seen the old (historic if you will) reporting and it doesn't show an average diamond size near 0.5ct (more like 0.08 average size) ... and that's why I repeated it to Morgan.

I'm going to qualify this a bit ... it's possible Morgan didn't interpret what I was asking correctly (doubt it) ... it could be the 'rockets' influenced my understanding of his answer ... maybe he said 0.05 (doubt that too .... I'm sure I heard 0.5ct) ... or ... it could be that it is what he said and the current sampling protocol has a higher cut-off whereby the averages are coming in at 0.5ct and that would explain the lofty average carat values ... size and quality !!!

I'll leave it to Roumieu to hopefully back this up ... don't want to leave it with just my word or possible mis-quote.