fantom, you'd stated that 100m at 2gr would be very positive which has me a little confused. do you mean because of the additional tonnage to what we have already, or proving existing tonnage?

i'm having trouble following the "length of strike" concept. does it actually take place in 3 dimensions? length/width/depth?

Yes, cantjustread, the whole mining concept is based on three dimensions.

Our "existing tonnage" is based on length, width and depth of known mineralization.

At Timmins we have positive drill results to a depth of 300 meters.

Tilsley thinks, that there will be the same sort of mineralization up to a depth of 1000 meters.

So, we need confirmation from drilling, how far down the mineralization goes.

Combine the surface "footprint" and the depth and you get this 3D cube of mineralization. Multiplication of all three dimensions gives you the volume (cubic meters).

Multiply the result with the specific gravity (specific weight) of the mineralized material and you get the tonnage.

our "bulk sampling" showed a "simple average grade" of approx 3gr over 100m (and i think 28m wide?) but that did'nt seem to set the world on fire...is that because there was no depth?

Cantjustread, don´t confuse "bulk sampling" with "bulk mining".

Bulk sampling was done at Timmins from surface, so the results show concentration of gold within the mineralized material at surface.

You need the depth (drill results) to confirm, how large your cube is, which ultimately gives you the tonnage. If you can confirm similar grades at depth throughout the area of your mineralized surface footprint (infill drilling), than you will increase your overall tonnage.

That´s exactly what Golden Hope is doing. Plus extending the known surface footprint through drilling new anomalies (Laval´s Mountain, Beland, Sugar Bush, Snow White and possibly quite a few more in the future).

Fingers crossed, that they will be successful.

FANTOMAS