Shot a quick email to Sasha this afternoon...

So, my theory does have some weight, although it's pretty obvious when you look at the map. The bulk sample results are quite different (better) when taken from the known mineralized zones. As Justice alluded to, GNH is building a big picture of their claims, not just trying to sell a rosy picture with only the best results. We now know how much gold is in the non-mineralized zones < .5g/t...and the mineralized zones appear to be >3g/t.

If the mineralized zones have any consistency in this regard we are...well....let's just say we are made in the shade at this market cap going forward. Tonnage won't be an issue. Remember, this all goes at least 1000m deep in 'theory'.

Word is there was an issue at the lab for the T2 results so they have to be retested to assure quality control.

I still maintain that the Geochem is the elephant in the room. Folks, if that Geochem map fills out as it looks like it will and is anywhere close to 3g/t it's a gongshow. Caveat - I'm not at all being conservative but am calling it as I see it - unfortunately that's how I roll. Results could come back poor all over these areas but so far...so good.

All of this is moot unless we can get a 43-101, which, I believe IS possible for at least the Timmins deposits. This is a question for either the Cocktail or the Hoov. Either way I hope to understand this better by next week.

B