GNH is using a Geo Chem process called Soil Gas Hydrocarbon (SGH) developed by Activation Laboratories (www.actlabs.com/). SGH is an interesting and highly effective technique for finding mineral deposits and establishing drilling targets. I thought it would be useful to the board that we all get familiar with how it works and it's reliability.

Commence data download.........

Developement: http://www.actlabs.com/page.aspx?menu=62&app=208&cat1=743&tp=2&lk=no

Overview of technique: http://www.actlabs.com/page.aspx?page=548&app=226&cat1=549&tp=12&lk=no&menu=64

Other success stories using SGH: http://www.actlabs.com/page.aspx?vieweditors=no&menu=62&app=208&cat1=730&tp=2&lk=no&add=yes

Article from MineWeb after the GNH press release about Act Labs SGH: http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page66?oid=91530&sn=Detail

Act Labs Reports on the GNH's New FSG Target for Gold and Base Metals: http://www.goldenhopemines.com/FG_Gold_Base_Metal_Anomalies.php

N.B: We are currently waiting for results on the Bellechasse (Timmins) results of the SGH on the possible extension of the known mineralized zones as per the GNH news release dated Nov.10.2009:http://www.goldenhopemines.com/uploadfiles/Press%20Release%20Geo%20Chem%20Nov.10.pdf

SGH RATING SYSTEM (Source: Act Labs Report on the FSG Target, Oct.9.2009)

To date SGH has been found to be successful in the depiction of buried mineralization for Gold, Nickel, VMS, SEDEX, Uranium, Polymetallic, and Copper, as well as for Kimberlites. SGH data has developed into a dual exploration tool. From the interpretation, a vertical projection of the predicted location of the target can be made as well as a statement on the rating of the comparability of the identification of the anticipated target type to that from known case studies, e.g. if the client anticipates the target to be a Gold deposit, what is the rating or comparability that the target is similar to the SGH results over a Gold deposit in Nunavut, shear hosted as well as sediment hosted deposits in Nevada, Paleochannel Gold mineralization in Western Australia.

A rating of “6” is the highest or best rating, and means that the SGH classes most important to describing a Gold related hydrocarbon signature are all present and consistently vector to the same location with well defined anomalies. To obtain this rating there also needs to be other SGH classes that when mapped lend support to the predicted location.

A rating of “5” means that the SGH classes most important to describing a Gold signature are all present and consistently describe the same location with well defined anomalies. The SGH signatures may not be strong enough to also develop additional supporting classes.

A rating of “4” means that the SGH classes most important to describing a Gold signature are mostly present describing the location with well defined anomalies. Supporting classes may also be present.

A rating of “3” means that the SGH classes most important to describing a Gold signature are mostly present and describe the same location with fairly well defined anomalies. Some supporting classes may or may not be present.

A rating of “2” means that some of the SGH classes most important to describing a Gold signature are present but a predicted location is difficult to determine. Some supporting classes may be present

A rating of “1” is the lowest rating, and means that one of the SGH classes most important to describing a Gold signature is present but a predicted location is difficult to determine. Supporting classes are also not helpful.