Mtl_gold... but I ask you after you posted,

"Herb, I do beleive that ORE's property that you're referring to is going to be an open-pit mine. Our property will, in all likelihood, be an underground mine. It's important to note these differences when making such a comparison. This is apples and oranges."

Now, to be fair, I have heard something similar as well. This may be mined in a combination of open pit and underground. My point...

Timmins 1 is at surface. They did trenching at the surface here. Snow White zone is at surface. They ARE doing trenching and bulk sampling there as we wait. These 2 zones are the lions share of our projected 100 million tons, correct me if I am wrong. Why can these 2 zones NOT be mined by open pit??? If they are at surface, are they not pittable? Is the ORE mineral body very shallow (like a couple of hundred meters deep by several hundreds of meters wide and long) that they can just make a perfect pit and get out only the mineralized rock? I seriously don't know. And secondly, my point is that I was once told years ago that it does in fact cost more to mine underground. How much more is the question? When I inquired about it, approx. 3 years ago, I was told that it was profitable to mine open pit at 3 grams/ton at that time and you needed approx. 4.5 grams/ton for a profit underground. That was when gold was at roughly $600ish an ounce. It is more than double that today.

So, my point of debate, is it not as valuable to mine this underground if we get 3-4 g/ton as it would be to mine the ORE mineral body via open pit at .8 grams/ton or their inferred .9ish grams/ton? That is the question... and that is where I think we should be given value, WHEN we can show the world that we indeed do have 100 million tons...

That's my side of the debate, anyway. I do stand to corrected...

Herb