Mark,

Thank you for the link to that site. Another excellent resource for the toolbox.

I am not sure why Eagle Hill used a 3.0 g/t cutoff, but in the end the optics will not fool those with experience. It would be like telling young child you were going to give them $5 worth of loose change and they had to make a choice from one pile with lots of small pennies and another pile with a few silver dollars. Most kids would go for the pile of pennies as there is a higher number of coins. What they cannot comprehend is that the value of the two piles is the same - but it takes a lot more work to carry the pennies to the piggy bank.

I saw a news release pumped by Stockhouse today about a mining company named Prodigy Gold. They released an updated NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate on November 2, 2011 for its flagship Magino mine gold project in northern Ontario. In bold letters it stated:

"Prodigy Expands Magino Indicated Gold Resource to 2,176,000 Ounces and Inferred Gold Resource to 1,721,000 Ounces".

http://www.prodigygold.com/_resources/news/nr_2011_11_02.pdf

That was a lot of ounces I thought so I checked out their web site. I first reviewed the basics: stock up 15.62% on that news and closed at $ .74 cents. An O/S count of 237+ million and market cap of $175 million.

I started to do the simple math using the total of ounces they provided (let's call it 4 million) compared to EAG's number. I figure about a 6 to 1 difference with nothing else being considered. So their market cap divided by 6 is about 30 million so that is 50% more than EAG. I then began to look through their web site.

They must have other properties outside of Magino I assumed and I found some other projects. A few prospective ones here and there but only one other with a NI 43-101. That one stated about 111,000 ounces indicated. Not enough to justify a 50% premium between the two companies.

Then upon reading the results closer, I nearly dropped off my chair. Their cutoff for the 4 million ounces was .35 g/tonne! The chart they provided had ranges from .1 g/tonne all the way up to 2 g/tonne. At 2 g/tonne they show 601,000 ounces indicated and 477,000 inferred. They did not show 3 g /tonne but we know that would have dropped both numbers if used as a cutoff.

So in the end at a 2.0 gpt cutoff Prodigy Gold showed:

Indicated: 5 million tonnes with a grade of 3.36 gpt for 18,705,000 grams or 601,000 ounces.

Inferred: 4.73 million tonnes with a grade of 3.47 gpt for 14,836,000 grams or 477,000 ounces

I then looked over the Eagle Hill's release from today again to see where we stood with a similar cutoff:

Resource reported at a cut off of 3.0 grams of gold per tonne ("g/t of Gold"):

• Indicated resource of 1.144 million tonnes at 9.10 g/t of Gold (344,000 Gold ounces)
• Inferred Resource of 1.690 million tonnes at 6.70 g/t of Gold (364,000 Gold ounces)

At this point the two examples are nearing parity. EAG included a global block model chart in the NR which showed the following for a 2.0 g/t cutoff:

5,015,000 tonnes with a grade of 5.38 for 867,000 ounces,

Comparison #1:

Prodigy: Indicated 5 million tonnes with a grade of 3.36 gpt for 18,705,000 grams or 601,000 ounces.

Eagle Hill: 5,015,000 tonnes with a grade of 5.38 for 867,000 ounces

I am not a geologist but it appears that Eagle-Hill has potentially 40% more gold in the same amount of tonnage than Prodigy.

Comparison #2:

Prodigy: Market cap of $175 million and their stock jumped 15% after their news.

Eagle Hill: Market cap of ~20M and the stock dropped 15% after their news.

For all I know Prodigy may be sitting on a different property that more than makes up for the other 155M in market cap, but I have not found one yet on their site. What I do know is that in a 600M x 800 M x 475 M box in Windfall Lake, Quebec there exists an equivalent amount of gold to what was announced with Prodigy's Magino project NI 43-101.

To me this means that one company is severely undervalued and under promoted or the other is extremely over valued and over promoted.

Which is it?

M1.