Tip of the Iceberg

Okay folks, after having read it a few times over and having spoken to the GNH people, here is what I make of the NR today.

From what I have seen with GNH over the years, we have on our hands the classic issue of people not necessarily understanding the relevance of the news. Perceptually, 100g/t over 2 meters sounds pretty interesting but 3g/t over 100 meters in length and 48 meters in width sounds less attractive. Most people when asked would likely favour the 100g/t although it does not give any real insight into the real value of the deposit, it just sounds sexy. In fact I just checked Stockwatch.com and the headline of today's NR is Golden Hope samples two m of 11.98 g/t Au. That is in fact not accurate at all and misses the entire point! Go take a look here: http://www.stockwatch.com/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=Z-C:GNH-1692956&symbol=GNH&news_region=C , it just goes to show what the disconnect is between making an economic discovery and selling “newspapers” is.

What most people do not understand is that this NR has effectively demonstrated that over an area of 100m long by 48m wide and 300m deep has an average grade that is 3g/t. This is a significant amount of rock to start out with! And this is only on Timmins 1. Herbwiebe makes a good rough calculation of the tonnage and potential here: http://agoracom.com/ir/GoldenHope/forums/discussion/topics/405268-tonnage/messages/1338869#message

If GNH had decided to include historical values of high grade pits, the average could have appeared higher. If GNH had used a narrower channel, the grade could have appeared higher. The point here is that management is not in the business of “creative accounting” and manufacturing numbers that do not accurately represent the deposit. Mnagement is however in the business of developing and growing a real asset.

The significance of the NR is that the theory that the average grade gets better with larger samples is proven. The company has also proven an average grade that they feel represents the deposit accurately. Given that Timmins 1 was used as the model, we know how the ore body appears to be acting and it seems that further bulk sampling down the line will not be necessary. From what I am told, stripping and trenching will be conducted in the future in conjunction with regular drilling to determine the growing size of the deposit.

The break down of the bulk sample can be viewed here: http://www.goldenhopemines.com/UserFiles/Timmins_Bulk_Sample_Results_feb28,2010.pdf

Sections of the trenches can be viewed here: http://www.goldenhopemines.com/UserFiles/section_trench1.jpg

and here: http://www.goldenhopemines.com/UserFiles/section_trench2.jpg

So Timmins 1 as we know it at the moment has only been cut off to the SW and NE by sediments. It was previously believed that where the sediments began, the mineralization stopped. The Geo Chem has clearly given us reason to believe differently. Geo Chem can be viewed here: http://www.goldenhopemines.com/UserFiles/Timmins_compilation_with_geochem_results_Jan-4-2010.pdf The question will be how far does Timmins 1 extend? The current Geo Chem appears to easily suggest another 30% roughly but we will have to wait for the rest of the Geo Chem to come in for the picture to get a little clearer, but it's looking pretty good so far.

Now, refer back to the Geo Chem Compilation Map. We also have Timmins 2 which has been been traced over 300 meters in length and 225 meters in depth and width of 5-20m. T2 is the first of the parallel zones to T1 that the NR today refers to. The potential here is that T2 could host another considerable amount of tonnage to add to the list. We also have the 88 Zone which is about 500 meters away from Timmins and has been traced over 30 meters and needs more work to get a handle on.

Moreover, between Timmins and the 88 Zone, it appears as though there is at least one other zone developing if not 2 or more. We will call these areas A and D as they are on the map. There is definitely some good juice here for parallel zones and mineralizations around the Timmins Complex.

And, in case this wasn't enough info, there is Laval's Mountain 8km to the NE and the Beland showing 6km South of Timmins that have similar signatures. Are these showings repetitions or are they continuous? Time will tell.

My take away from the NR today is decisively positive. With an average rock density of 2.7 - 2.8 which gives us 10,000 – 11,000 tons per vertical meter on Timmins 1, we are definitely looking at something with good tonnage that will only grow from here.

Now with the hypethetical math of the very small area we spoke of here:

T1 + T2 + 88 Zone + Immediate Surrounding Areas = Good Times to Come!

At the end of the line everything has to be proven scientifically, but I am very happy with the developements thus far.

Cheers, J.