WtlessB,

Agreed that this NR is rather confusing. It could have been better if Dave just stuck with the original strategy. Of course, change in direction can be introduced depending on the market conditions, but once Dave has painted the picture with two distinct zones, LGZ and HGZ stick with them to avoid confusion. At least you would have a base for comparison.

1. It would be fine to put more emphasis on the HGZ since this is promising deposit with high grade, 5+gpt is excellent, and can be developed economically with a UG operation. The 3D Corebox model indicates a compact and simple deposit to extract. If the aim is to have an average grade of around 2.5 gpt (still much better than the average grade at Goldex UG mine) the resource could be increased significantly (as an example, it could become 3-4Moz).

Further drilling in the HGZ would add more ounces. Thete would be no need to change the script.

2. If the current climate does not warrant an emphasis on the LGZ, then just leave it alone. I don't see the point in changing the consultant with the resulting change in the pit shell optimization (there is no need to optimize something that you would temporarily put in the back burner). Since this would add any brownie points, and at the same time would only cause unecessary confusion.

I just hope that Dave has something up his sleeve. May be he read John Kaiser's comments on PRB on 13 May 2014 (The Gold Report). Kaiser said: "We hope it (the resource estimate for HGZ) comes in at 1-2 Moz with the grade of 4-6gpt...to build an underground mine, gold is likely to be higher than $1300/oz. At that point the mine can be fed with additional ore from the LGZ", but somehow the NR did not come out with that crystal clear vision.

If you have a chance have a chat with Dave on the phone you could suggest that perhaps it would be helpful to issue a more detailed explanation to bridge a few gaps in the communication with investors.

goldhunter