Your two statements say a LOT to me... First,

"Yes, Herb, you've got it right. The trenches were all done perpendicular to the general trend of the quartz veins."

And then...

"And because it was a cross-vein trenching, the sample could contain quartz, diorite, and sediments....whatever was there."

This speaks VOLUMES to me... I have been trying to get a grasp on this "Tonnage Issue" and was thinking about applying a 10 to 30% quartz veining reducing factor to actual tonnage, but after hearing about the cross trenching, which included ALL the rock involved, then getting 2.99 g/ton is very, very significant indeed... Here's why.

If you only look at the sweet spot and are only getting 3ish g/ton out of quartz only, then the likely hood of this being a large, low grade mine becomes a lot less, as you have to follow the veins. This puts a significant damper on things as you don't just blast an open pit and process all the blastings... There is tons of waste to be considered. If you include ALL of the rock in your blastings and are looking at 2.99 g/ton, then your tonnage should be MUCH, MUCH higher :-}

My point, don't be multiplying the tonnage by 10 to 30% when calculating the tonnage of this deposit... It's straight 100%, baby...

Thanks again, Larry and Brad. You guys just made my day... Now, if Mr. West would care to make my day tomorrow, that would just be GREAT!!! Just one more stepping stone to a valuation where we can feel good about selling, whatever your point is for that...

Have a great day, all. Can't wait until tomorrow. Let's hope we may even get a bit of news to help Mr. West with his interview tomorrow. And if not, I am sure he will have plenty of good things to talk about just to get the word out... just like Larry and Brad have been doing for us here on the forum (and others as well, dont' get all miffed that I can't remember names...)

God Bless all Golden Investors...

Herb