This press release was actually very interesting.

H-07-10 to 17 were NSV but they were designed to test the westerly and easterly extensions of the ultramafic flow (PR 30 Apr and 12 Jun 07)

hole 19 and 20 were designed to test the far westerly and easterly extensions of the ultramafic flow

Hole 23 NSV and hole 24 were twin holes but 23 had a dip of -45 and hole 24 had a dip of -70 and from 296 to 299 metres returned 3 metres at 1.28% Ni incl a m at 3.36% Ni

Hole 31 and 32 were twin holes but hole 31 had a dip or -50 and -70 respectively. Hole 32 came up NSV but hole 31 returned from 216.15 to 221.7 5.55 m at 0.93% Ni incl 3.7 m at 1.13 % Ni and 0.3 m of 5.1% Ni.

Holes 38 to 42 tested mineralization at more distant sites.

Hole 47 was NSV but also reflected the eastern margins of the main zone.

Holes 34 to 48 were used to identify the lower sulphide pool for over 150 m on strike between 310 and 420m below surface.

Hole 51 NSV and 49 were twins but hole 51 had a dip of -58 and 49 had a dip of -65 and from 248 to 256 returned 8 m 0.27% Ni incl 0.1 m 1.35 % Ni (defined eastern margin of deposit)

Holes 56, 58 and 60 were NSV. Holes 56 and 58 were very similar in coordinates and hole 60 had largest easting coordinate. Mineralization for the holes between was at between 319 and 363 m. If hole had been successful, the size of the deposit would have grown significantly.

In conclusion. our geologists were aggressively trying to loosely define the deposit. Some holes were twins to others with different dips, others were step out drilling. I think they did a very good job working at defining the deposit and when you look at holes 75 to 81 you see the start of infill drilling. Not too shappy for 1 year's work.