As usual, I posted my last message too soon. I wanted to make it clear that my last post was a paper by Richard Busch (FGMS Member)

But the point I wanted to make is that geologist have been debating the source of the Sudbury Structure for many years now. So for Van Eeden to come out and insinuate he already has full understanding of the McFaulds geological setting is just ridiculous.

RN has made it quite clear that this area has not been pursued or extensively explored because of it's remote location. We are at the infancy of discovery of the McFaulds / James Bay Lowlands area.

Van Eedens opinion of the Ni is a non issue in my opinion. He is only trying to create doubt IMO. Let's face it, the cores don't lie. The assays are what they are.

Hole NOT-07-01 partial assay results, 36 meters averaging 1.84% Nickel, 1.53% Copper, includes 1.04 g/t Platinum, 2.87 g/t Palladium and 0.127 g/t Gold, more results to follow

· Drilling continues to explore new discovery

· Hole NOT-07-05 encounters massive chalcopyrite (copper sulphide), pyrrhotite (iron +/- nickel sulphide) and pentlandite (nickel sulphide) over 65.4 meters

And the academics will be debating the source of this structure for many years to come. Many geology student will write papers on the McFaulds discovery for their thesis in coming years. The source is really not too important for Noront investors.

The important thing for us is the remaining assays and future drill results . Nothing more, nothing less.