I have seen a couple references to a deep bulk sample. Has there been some type of deep bulk sampling done, or were those comments just relating to sometime in the future?

I am disappointed too, but having first read Hoov's post, I believe that there is much we have yet to hear.

What I have to keep remembering, is the nuggety affect. If GNH ends up proving 25 million tons, we pretty much know that the grade will roughly be double what the drill shows.

I really have no idea how the actual grade of an area is determined, when using drill samples over such a huge area, that vary so much. I suppose the surface bulk samples assays are included in the overall averaging. What I would like to know, is whether or not there will be any sizeable bulk sampling done at depth, and how it would be done.

You know, it's so hard to know which one of the 100's of junior explorers to completely trust, and to just say 'patience, patience'. We all have to trust at some point. And keep trusting, if we get have a gut feeling that the principals involved are more than competent, up front and honest, and that the science and geology is being intelligently used.

We have all, I believe, felt very good about the GNH TEAM. I see no reason to stop trusting them, just because all our hopes and dreams didn't get proven by now. I think it is probably pie in the sky to think that a huge viable gold discovery can be proven up in a year or less. I am very much a novice, but it seems to me that a huge amount of info/data has been collected over a relatively short time, and much much more is to come this year.

In Bingo, your card can look pretty dismal for half the game, and then suddenly every number comes up, and you get a BINGO! That's why we play.....we're all just waiting.

Pen