Certainly valid points, but as I stressed in my post, my figures were guesstimate figures... Btw, my $814/tonne figure was based on Rockaur's result using the same site you mention.

At any rate, I would argue that the 'deposit' has already taken on some 3 dimensional properties. We have a 500m geophysical anomaly, which was the drill target, that proved to be VMS mineralization....

We also have a preliminary width of 50 metres based on holes #1 and #2 - the 50 m true width (of the orebody at that postion) was mentioned in the first or second NR...

We also have a depth of around 100m based on the length of mineralization in hole #5, which was drilled vertically...

Thus, I come up with 500m X 50M X 100M as a speculative sort of first guess figure for the dimensions of the orebody. I am fully aware that these could/will change significantly...

Regards,

B.