Well you hit the nail on the head right there.

This 100MT thing has been a bit of a mystery to me, and I've mentioned before in posts that I wasn't clear about how this 100MT will be proven.

I was alongside Semismart (who posts here and flew in from Ohio to rep his investment group) who was asking Tilsley some questions and it reminded me of the one I have been dying to ask for so long.

How are we going to prove up 100MT?

Well we are, but we're not. I think there was a common misconception that this 100MT was going to done by drill and that it could be 43-101 compliant if we had true grade.

When Tilsley etc is referring to 100MT it is not in any way, shape or form 43-101 compliant. It will be conceptual. If they drill here, drill there, and places in between and assume depth to 1000m than they will get an area that would be defined as mineralized that would represent 100MT.

However, to PROVE that 100MT would probably take many drills and a few years to bring it to a 43-101 compliant state.

So when we compare our deposit to other deposits with tonnes of ore we should consider that we may be comparing apples and bananas.

So...100MT is no less impressive a number but it will take a lot of time and money to drill it out to make it up to standards that would be indicated, inferred, etc. and worth the values that some of us here place on it.

Maybe the Hoov or somebody else can elaborate some more on this one, as I'm not certain and if we plan to evaluate the value of things, it's good to be certain.

Lots more to report, hopefully by tonight.

And fyi, if this tidbit above takes the wind out of your sails...it's probably a good thing. There is lots of work to do, and things are clearly on the right track it's amazing. However, if you thought we'd have 100MT value at 2g/t b December you might be wrong.