I think the issue is ounces of gold, and that means grade is as important as tonnage. Tonnage and grade are totally dependant on one another in the calculation of ounces. As Hoov has posted in great detail, getting a representative sample from gold deposits of this type is difficult. The drill core is small diameter, it is split which further limits the situation and therefore does not lend itself to competent statistical analysis. The information I have read leads me to believe that assays done conventionally on nuggetty deposits or deposits that don't have mineralization consistantly dispersed through the medium will give grade results that are far lower than what will be experienced during mining. This has been proven by GNH when they trenched perpedicular to the strike and processed bulk samples. I think they did four such trenches from edge to edge.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the challenge is to scientifically and legally establish a factor or multiplier from the traditional assays that can be used to assess the actual grades in the deposit. An example of this would be if the drill core assays through a bulk sample gives grades of 1.25 g/t and the grades acheived when the bulk sample is processed is 2.5g/t, than the factor or multipier would be 2. That way when GNH gets their drill program finished, the grades published and used for calculation of total ounces will be twice what the drill program assays give.

It is our best interest, in my opinion, if they can come to an agreement on a multiplier rather than simply release the drill core data for obvious reasons.