Tantallon,

Might I suggest that in comparing the ISM 43-101 and LBE's 43-101's you are comparing apples and peaches. LBE has reserve tonnages on it's two producing mines, and resource tonnage on Hart. ISM's tonnage is all resource tonnage. The difference is that when and if a mining plan is done on your properties to get the reserve tonnages, the numbers you are talking about now, could be decimated. The Langmuir North numbers are the ones I would worry about if I were you. Being on the border of a lake or under a lake can present some horrendous mining problems, even more for a pit mine. ISM still hasn't produced a dewatering permit on Langmuir 1 two years after they announced they were going to apply for one. Might they have even more problems with Langmuir North when First Nations, environmentalists, and cottage owners hear ISM is planning a pit mine near NIghthawk Lake? There could be some major alterations in the mining plan and the dream of an on site mill.

Maybe you should drop back by after ISM catches up, and has reserve tonnages to talk about, if that ever happens in my life time.

On Sothman I guess Gary had to do some exploratory work in order to decide whether it deserved more development. I'm sure even you would agree this is a normal course of action that many exploration companies have to contend with in order to find new economical deposits, If you don't drill, then you don't know. Some might think that money spent on Jasper has not paid off either. You asked: Do you know how long Sothman was held by LBE? It must have been at least three years if not more. Try 20 months. News announcing this project was released in May 2008. News announcing the termination of the project was just this week. However an astute investor would have easily put two and two together when they noticed the project was no longer included in the projects category when LBE recently updated their website. Sometimes, much more time, effort, and money
can be expended on uneconomic projects, than what LBE spent on Sothman. You may very well find out that Langmuir proves out uneconomic after the mining plan, permit applications, First Nations negotiations and economic studies.

Be sure and drop back by when all of that has happened.

BTW tantallon, There's far more to calculating pounds of nickel, than you seem to understand. I calculate LBE has proven, measured and indicated tonnage of over 85 million pounds on Hart, Redstone and McWatters in it's three reports. This compares more than favorably to your 93 million pounds when considering our cut off values are higher than your reported average grades. Also note that a fair portion of LBE's resource falls under reserve category. Hence economic viability is demonstrated at 7.00 nickel. You have a long way to go at Langmuir, especially considering your low grade, and miniscule 0.20% cut off.

Please note that LBE is very close to moving another 737,000 tonnes, grading 1.57% at Redstone from the "inferred" category to the indicated status. This by itself adds another 25.5 million pounds to our 85 million, giving us over 110 million pounds of nickel. Remember its not the total # of pounds, but its the grade and economics thats important.