Hey Johnny, there's a bit of a make-work project in your question but seeing as you'd like some response I'll throw a 10 minute one at it because I don't think I'll have time to go over your directions etc.

The bulk sampling was not cherry picked to find the best looking mineralized zones. As it is at surface it is pretty easy to see where the quartz, diorite, overburden and whatever else is there. Having been there several times I've probably walked inside the trench you are actually talking about.

One of my major beefs with this bulk sampling is why did they not choose the best spots to sample from. I see you said it looks like it goes right over T2 but the quartz diorite veins do not encompass probably the entire diagram that you see as T2.

Not sure what map you are looking at but if there is a line or shaded outlining T2 I can assure you there are good spots and bad spots to conduct bulk sampling. Don't assume that this is all one single homogenous zone of mineralization.

When I did my DD and these results came out I was shaking my head because it looked like if the moved the trenches around according to historical data that could have guaranteed themselves a bulk sampling grade of something like 8g/t. From what I could see they were trenching junk! What is up with that?

Johnny...meet Jim Tilsley.

He purposefully selected areas he believed were less likely to stand up to bulk sampling. Why? Because he is an astute geologist, will always err on the conservative side and seems to understate everything. He wanted an average grade of the entire zone so that includes sampling from all types of areas within that zone. Hence a homogenous grade of 2.99g/t.

If you are picking on a couple of weak trenches I think you will end up where I ended up with this. You can blame Tilsley as far as I'm concerned but I shall think we will be thanking him in the long run as his integrity and name with this project have taken very very far.

That is of course unless his conservatism gets the best of us and he understates our project right back into the ground it came from!

Does this make sense or I am completely off here in getting you to your answer?

And of course I will disclaim that although I seem to know a lot about GNH, it could also be easy to argue that I don't know what the hell I am talking about - but that is what I saw when I pored over the bulk sampling results of 2009.

Tilsley can prove the grade is 2 with the drill, 3 with bulk sampling and has said several times that he thinks it is closer to 4 and maybe even higher.

If you want my honest opinion, if they cherry picked some nice areas to bulk sample from we'd be sitting on grades of 4+ and maybe even bulk of 8+. It's been proven here in the past if you can dig those ones out of the vault from Sasha.

Fyi, take a look at the picture of the core I took that was left over in the core shack from my last site visit and check out the VG in there. Each red circle is VG. (visible gold for anyone who is wondering what the hell does VG mean?!)

That chunk alone is a lot more than 100g/t for 1m and was not sent to the lab for assays but it was on the wrong side of where the core saw went so too bad...it stays dammitall.

Those little specks of gold on their own, if they were to reported to the market would have had a significant impact on how our company is valued.

Therein lies the irony for the plethora of investors on the sidelines thinking that GNH investors are getting pumped with a lotta hype. It's actually quite the opposite...and I would personally like to see that change in our near future.

B

(ok, 30 minute answer )