Mark,

Agreed with your assessment. Perhaps we (all interested parties on this board) should get together, draft a rebuttal to Hocking's report and present it to Dr. Palmer for him to review and add whatever he would like to add and send to Scotia, with copy to the Financial Post. If he's reluctant to do it then perhaps one of us should take on the case and send it to Scotia with copy to the FP. It should be noted that the FP article has a section for readers' comments. We could make use of that as individuals, or as a group.

One small correction, Hocking claim 2.63Moz (not 2.3Moz), but this estimate is a joke considering the value produced by certified professional geologists for the pit-constrained estimate (4.3Moz).

Do you wand to get something going. It should be in point form so that contributors can add items to the list. We want to make it comprehensive starting with his model and assumptions used, but we need to be to the point (not too wordy).

Item 1: Does anyone here know anything about his model and the assumptions such as

Item 2: the COG of 5.5 gpt for underground mines? Note: Goldex underground mine has the following resource estimates: Measured and Indicated of 1.9Moz @ 1.96gpt; and Inferred of 1.37 @ 1.64gpt and the total cash cost at $780/oz (they are making money). so why Hocking used 5.5gpt? (I presume COG is for Cut of Grade in his report) This is not for small vein deposit where workers need to follow the veins to chisel the gold out. Similarly he has COG of 0.5gpt for open pit? This could be one major item in the rebuttal.

Item 3: Another thing is his table showing NAV etc...Anyone want to take this on, since I have not paid too much attention to this.

Item 3: Acquisition cost: 2.63 Moz x $120/oz = $315.6M/75Mshare = $4.2/s (not the same as his target of 1.30/s . I there a fatal error in his math?

Other items: Anyone?

Item: 4, 5, 6...

Conclusion: Unsubstantiated analysis that contains many flaws, etc...

Action: provide rationale for the recommendation"sell now". If they cannot do it then ask for a retraction?

I just wrote this off the top of my head. Feel free to edit (please provide a complete revision, not comments like "don't like it" (to that I would say: then provide something that you like).

Your input, SVP. Strike when it's hot.

goldhunter