No need for correction QQ.

I have, as others have in the past posted some information pertaining to specific gravity (relative density if you will) about certain certain types of "rocks". In order to attempt an even rudimentary valuation of any deposit (given rough dimensions) one must have an insight into specific gravity.

Relative density or specific gravity, is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a given reference material. Specific gravity usually means relative density with respect to water. (1000 kg of pure water = 1 cubic metre).

If the specific gravity of a material is 4.34 (the actual specific gravity of our massive sulphides from E1A as taken from our preliminary economic assessment dated December 10/08) there are 4,340 kgs per cubic metre. In your example QQ, "wheelbarrow" might be overstating.

For comparative purposes of specific gravity, I have included a chart below but will leave the exercise of calculation of value per tonne to those inclined as per the following link: http://www.kitco.com/pop_windows/kitcorockcalc.html

With repsect to the current N/R, nice work Wes et al. Apparently business as usual from NOT's camp. Does the snowflake/flurry stick? As much as NOT might be comfy thinking that they have the required shares to block the other bid, I'm thinking it will look more like Christmas over the next couple of days. There remains the concern of FWR issuing friendly PP shares to undermine NOT's position.

Cheers,

Milsy1