Hey Mike,

I am not sure we are the same page with respect to the relative importance/unimportance of the nuggety nature of this deposit compared to more homogenously distrubuted gold deposits, particularly with respect to exploration and possibly future mining strategies.

We are in the late stages of defining a large mineralized envelope - I hope we can agree on that point. The nature of the gold distribution within that envelope is not important to me as long as GNH can effectively define the limits of the envelope(s). They seem to be doing this fairly effectively. Moreover, the nuggety nature by definition implies a bonus factor so that I can reasonably expect the true grades within the final envelope to be somewhat higher than the drills will show.

Why would one discount 100 and 300 m intercepts of ~1 g/ton from GNH simply because the deposit is nuggety and not homogenous? Is there evidence to suggest the envelope disappears in areas adjacent to nuggets such as the one in hole 167? No, in fact the minearlized zone persists with good intercepts near the 167 nugget as clearly evidenced by the wedge hole data. Can you say because they did not hit bonanza grades in the wedge hole that there is not gold within the adjacent envelope- I don't think so. If you have some reason to think the gold nuggets are not randomly distributed within the mineralized zones I would like to hear that argument.

My opinion is that if you are going to pull all of the mineralized rock out of the ground why would you care whether it the gold is nuggety or not- except for processing puroposes where it appears to give a distinct cost advantage in gravity circuit recovery rates. Of course, I would prefer a large single blob envelope, rather than parallel mineralized zones with waste rock between but that is the nature of the deposit.

I welcome all fresh opinions on these matters. I have tried to express my own opinions as clearly as I can. I would appreciate hearing others.

Best,

Scott