CJR,

I thought you saw that in the last assays, and that was with one hand tied behind our back.

If you remember my post;

http://agoracom.com/ir/GoldenHope/forums/discussion/topics/442592-gnh-drills-331-7-metres-2-003-g-t-au/messages/1444172#message

I added up all of the bolded sections of the last batch of assays. The bolded sections are compilations of the various sections of drilling.

When you determine what the average grade of all of these bolded sections are per metre you end up with 2g/t by the drill. Historically they have proven 2g/t with the drill.

I guesstimate a further 45m that are not included in my calculations and will further guesstimate that had I included those 45m of 1m sections that our grade would still be very close to 2g/t, if not spot on.

Why do I say, one hand tied behind our back?

Well, all of this drilling was 'exploration' drilling and not 'definition' drilling. In other words, we weren't drilling in order to build up a 43-101 resource estimate. We were trying to find whole other zones for which we may try and do definition drilling at a later time when we have more cash....like $10M+ cash and we can announce 25,000m drill programs instead of 2500m drill programs.

Exploration drilling comes first, definition drilling later. If you're doing things right you're doing a lot of both which is what I suspect we will be seeing sometime in 2011 - and I think I'm a realist...not an optimist.

Of course, when a company reports drilling results do they include every single meter that the drill rod runs, or just every meter where they hit mineralization? My hunch is just for mineralization which supports my argument, but I've been wrong before.

B