Hi Brad- My impression of the nature of the deposits is exactly as you describe. My reasoning was as follows. If the normal widths of quartz intercepts are 10-50 m then this will on average underestimate the true grades/hole compared to bulk sampling. Over a 2000 m drill program they may get 200-500 m quartz (width) intersections and the rest is sediments, diorite etc. We already know this will likely underestimate true grades based on the sample size.

My thinking was that if by some method, one could design a strategy to stay in quartz all the way down to 1000 m then they may increase the average grade/ hole (by increasing the chance of including more nuggety bits) and at the same time triple the resource by extending the resource to a depth of 1000 m. On a cost savings note -they would also get 2000 m of quartz core from 2 holes instead of 16-20 (however there are added time/expense factors for a deeper drill).

I have spoken with Dany Boilard by e-mail today and he explained that the nature/shape of the deposit is not as simple as they laid out in the PDAC handouts. Apparently there is snaking and contouring at depth of individual veins that will make it difficult to stay in mineralization all the way down to 1000 m (even from the widest mineralized zones). So my thought exercise, might be able to increase average grades but ultimately you would be risking shorter intercepts. We can bring up directional drilling when the sp hits $3 hehe.

Best,

Scott