Further to my tea-leaf reading of the data released on 13 March 2012, here are my notes/comments.

1. PRB management should be given full credit for releasing timely information to shareholders. From my experience there are not too many companies that would published drill map and x-sections of the drill holes on their website just right after an NR. Some companies would not release anything or they would release information that is not readable. I was recommending a synthesis of the information in a 3-D model (as produced by Corebox.net), but the available information is quite good for doing some detailed analysis. Please note that I have not been paid by PRB management to give them a pat on the back, but I think they deserve some encouragement for the good deed.

2. I have looked at their drill map and the x-sections of the new holes (Ref. PRB website/Borden/2-D map and x-sections on the RHS of the page) and the results are quite impressive. The NR information and discussion are quite accurate. But as usual, one would need to go through the hole results and correlate them with the plan view to understand the full implications and to draw own conclusions. Check out links below.

http://www.probemines.com/i/maps/PlanviewMar19lowres.pdf

http://www.probemines.com/i/maps/Section%20200mSE.pdf

3. The main objective for this set of holes was to step out from the main zone in a direction perpendicular to the main axis of the deposit, now 2100 m long. All holes were drilled in the SE sections starting form the discovery zone. Almost all holes have decent intersections (around 100 m at 0.8 -1.0 g/t average). It would appear that the grades get better at depth. Note hole BL12 -149 has a whopping 24.6 g/t for 0.8m. The star hole BL12-157 also has a very high spike (similar to the 24.6g/t spike for hole 149) but for some reason, this was not mentioned in the table (the NR only listed 31m at 2.7g/t for hole 157). That spike is quite prominent for hole 157 in the section 200mSE. I think this should be listed in the Table and report it as fact.

4. There was a surprise: Previous intersections were mainly located in the red blobs (see plan view above). Now the deposit extension seems to be located in the blue and green blobs. The star hole 157 and hole 156 found mineralized zones underneath the deep blue blob. So, drill bits seem to hit Au in red, blue and green. Are there any geos in the house who can explain this. (Pure speculation: The air survey would show shallow deposit as red, but deeper deposit as blue?).

5. The shoe box models nad modified shoe box model:

- old model (NI-43-101): 1600 x 150 x 200 = 48 M m3

- new model (as of 20 March 2012); 2100 x 300 x 370 = 233 M m3 assming the shoe box

- Modified model: The truck model (shoe box with a block on the left side missing, so it would look like a truch heading in the NW direction). The reason for this is because there not much data (at least I could not readily find them) to support the full shoe box model from zero to 400mNW. Let take that chunk out to be conservative (400 x150 x 370 = 22 M m3)

- Revised volume: 233 - 22 = 211 M m3 (if you can support the full box model then we can put that chunk of 22 M m3 back)

Ratio 211 M m3 /48 M m3 = 4.85 (which is larger than 4 in my previous estimate based on the 13 March data). Kindly check my math.

Let take half of that to be conservative 4.8/2 = 2.4 x 4.1 M oz Au = 9.8 M oz Au.

Let's round it up to 10 M oz Au (my tea-leaf reading for the revised NI-43-101)

All this, plus $33M, plus BC, plus LSG JV, plus Goldex 5% for an SP of less than 1.30??? Mind boggling and too irresistible not to dive in... head first. This is only for die-hard people. Do your nazel gazing and make your own decision.

goldhunter