Bulk samples are not cheap either. As Hoov says, they have to be grubbed, overburden removed, rock blasted and all that material prepared for analysis. Once they finish, there will have to be a remediation plan if the land is not going to be mined. The drawback of bulk sampling is it tells you what is on the surface and we need to know how deep this deposit goes in order to detirmine tonnage. I have just read an article (compliments of Hoov) that Tilsley wrote 20 years ago on Sampling Theory of gold deposits like this one. In this paper, he goes through the sample process of taking out the extremely highs and the extremely lows as with any statistical analysis, and got a consistent grade for that sample. When assays were repeated for this same sample, the grades were very consistant. However, he states " In spite of this amazing consistancy, there proved to be less than one chance in 16 of collecting a second sample from a given location and obtaining an assay within 10% of the original." This gives an indication of how random the deposits are and how conventional core samples give limiting results. However, if a scientific correalation can be verified within statistical parameters and agreed upon by the regulatory agencies as a grade detirmination, than drilling will make a lot of sense. So far, there appears to be more gold in the bulk samples than the drill core assays suggested. Therefore, I make the assumption that this correaltion number will be higher than one, and hopefully over two. In my dreams, ten.LOL