The square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

If we let c be the length of the hypotenuse and a and b be the lengths of the other two sides, the theorem can be expressed as the equation

Now, if we need to drill to a vertical deth of 300m, we would need to step out 300m and drill a 424m hole at at 45 degree angle to reach this depth.

HOWEVER, the body of minerlization is plunging at an (undisclosed?) angle and what White proposed during his presentation was that if the body continued for 300m in that plunge, then we would have roughly 7 million tonnes (I had to cancel the order for my new Lear Jet after I found out that is was not 700 million. In fact, after hearing that last night, I had began working on a new mathematical theorem that 2+2=400, but I have shelved that for now also...)

Anyway, we need to know the angle of the plunge to know how deep we would have to drill. If, for example, it was only plunging at 15 degrees, the the vertical depth to the bottom or end of the 300m plunging body would be much less than 300m. Therefore, from surface, we would be drilling a hole length of much less than 300m to intercept this body, if for example, it the end of the 300m plunge was only 100m below surface

Remember also that we would be drilling into the plunging mineralization from probably a 90 degree angle to the plunge and not down, or along, the plunge.

Drilling depth for a given drill is also restricted or dependant on the size of rods they are using, but I would suspect that drills they have on site are capable of 1000m hole lengths - from the drill CORE photos, it appears they are using the stanadrd size drill rods. My memory is foggy on this, but I believe most surface diesel-powered diamond drills using standard size rods can drill at least 1000m hole lengths.

So, to reiterate, if someone can find, or knows, the angle of the plunge, then we could calculate how long of a hole they would have to drill at right angles to the plunge to intersect the the plunging mineralization at a depth of 300m, IF it in fact did go that deep without changing angles, which is unlikely. This body could easily change angles at any point, and may in fact plunge for certain distance, before changing angles and heading back towards surface. We could find just as easily find our 300m long body somewhere near surface further south, and although it is still 300m in length, an the volume calculation still applies, it might be drill-tested with a hole length of only 100m, for example.

In fact, this would be consistent with the "bridge" thing that has been mentioned, and the possibility that this body connects or links another stronger anomaly to the south.

Hope this helps...

Regards,

B.