I have paraphrased Dr. Webb's comments using italicized letters.

Cheers,

Baires

"The facts include TDC's published figures and officially-accepted definitions.

Beyond these facts the arguments are somewhat clouded...from both perspectives.
20121 has accurately added Inferred and Indicated numbers and truthfully says these represent the lowest classifications, from a professional as well as official NI 43-101 regulation, "Inferred" resources CANNOT be formally added to Measured and Indicated. In defense of 20121, this forum is NOT a formal or legal presentation and I suppose 20121 can add any numbers he so wishes to.

There are three categories for resources. In declining order of confidence they are Measured, Indicated and Inferred. It is correct to state that the highest two categories are Measured and Indicated. It’s also correct to say that lowest two are Indicated and Inferred. However, the NI 43-101 prohibits adding Inferred Resources to the other two categories. While Measured and Indicated can be added together.

Factually, Measured Resources and Indicated Resources are the two resource clasifications that could convert to Proven Reserves and Probable Reserves on the basis of a feasibility study.

Any resource could be converted to Proven or Probable Reserves. A simplistic view, however, is to look at Measured and Indicated converted directly with engineering parameters applied. While Inferred needs additional calculations.

I believe this is where Curvature makes some gross misinterpretation. I will explain as this is a common mistake made by the majority of non-mining individuals and is the key area that is typically exploited by junior companies.

First of all, just to clarify, a Preliminary Assessment (PA) study is allowed to incorporate Inferred Resources as part of the mineral 'resource' base. While many profesional engineers would still apply potential recovery and dilution factors based on their/industry experience, a major loophole in NI 43-101 guidelines allows for the indescriminate use of geological resources. Common to many junior company PA's is that these factors which reduce recovered tonnes and mineral and reduce mill feed grade are typically ignored, thereby inflating potential economics.

This statement is incorrect. Cut-off grades MUST considered. In Tyhee’s case, mining contractors were asked to supply bids on the project. These bids were then assessed by independent engineers who then utilized the figures to determine a mining cost. A determination was made that a contract for mining was available at $4 per tonne for waste, and $5 per tonne for ore in an open pit operation (drill, blast, load, haul, dump, plus maintenance and support), Furthermore,independent engineers determined that a conventional crush, grind, gravity plus float and cyanide situation at 3,000 tpd could process ore at $19 per tonne. In an open pit mine, the first bench might have a 1:1 strip ratio, whereas the last bench would have a 6:1 strip ratio. As such, the first bench could be mined and milled for $28 per tonne ($4 waste, $5 ore, $19 processing) while the last bench for $48 per tonne ($24 waste, $5 ore, $19 processing). Gold at $750 gold, 95% recovery, and CAD$ = US$, figures tobe 1.22 grams per tone in order to break even for the first bench and 2.09 grams per tonne to break even for the last bench. Other factors to consider include "waste" that must be moved during this phase to gain access to "ore". Some waste contains gold and if there’s more than $19 worth it can generate positive cash flow if milled. An example might be if on the sixth bench, a rock containing $35 worth of gold is not ore as 6 blocks of waste must be moved on average to get at it. Whereas if this block of waste is mined to get at a higher grade block, then once at the top of a pit it becomes "ore".

Juniors include a simple caveat that "resources are based on such-and-such cutoff grade". That is O.K. if you understand the implications.
In the case of TDC's 2008 PA they used a cutoff grade of 2.5 g/t. Note that this grade must ultimately ensure that a resource block of this grade would generate sufficient revenue to cover costs. In reality the block will have dilution and mill recovery and in the case of TDC and its deeper resources (300-500m below surface) must cover the costs of development and mining.
As an example of a junior exploration company with an advanced exploration/development project you only have to look at the recent preliminary assessment of Comaplex Mineral's (CMF-T) Meliadine gold project located west of Rankin Inlet in the NWT. Note that this is a PA and a high grade underground gold deposit and this is the cutoff grade statement from the report:

Notes: Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Although a cut-off grade of

6.5 g/t Au is considered a likely cut-off grade for underground mining below a depth of 9900 m elevation, it was based

on preliminary mine planning work only, and requires additional detailed mine planning work to demonstrate economic

viability.

Note that the elevation that is referred to is only 170 meters below surface! They intend to extract the near-surface mineralization with an open pit based on the following:

Although a cut-off grade of 2.5 g/t Au is considered a likely cut-off grade for open pit mining above a depth of 9900 m elevation, it was based on preliminary mine planning work only, and requires additional detailed mine planning work to demonstrate economic

viability.
Comaplex's approach is very realistic and professional and is summarized in the following statement from the report:

Preliminary mine planning and cost estimation studies were undertaken so that reasonable cutoff criteria could be applied for the reporting of the classified mineral resource (Snowden 2006b). The analysis suggested that open pit mining may be possible to a depth of approximately 170 m below surface (9900 m elevation). A cutoff grade of 2.5 g/t Au has been applied to resources reported above this elevation. Below the 9900 m elevation, it is likely that bulk underground mining methods may be possible. A 6.5 g/t Au cutoff grade has been applied for the reporting of this part of the resource.

Note that TDC have used a cutoff grade of 1.5 g/t for open pit and 2.5 g/t for underground. It is highly unlikely IMO that these cutoff would generate economic 'reserves' when appropriate factors as discussed are applied.

In Comaplex's PA they develop a realistic mine-recoverable resource (note they cannot call them 'reserves' as they include "Inferred") using the following assumptions:

A mining method was assigned to each of the blocks and an appropriate dilution for that method at zero grade was applied. Overall dilution for all stope blocks averaged 20%.

Extraction ratios to mimic losses during mining were applied depending on the mining method chosen, 80% for blasthole and 95% for cut-and-fill.

These are realistic factors and demonstrate the impacts of dilution and recovery.

TDC has somewhat addressed this issue in the following statement taken from the TDC PA, page 3 of the Summary:

"Although dilution and (mining) extraction are not considered, assuming 10 - 15% dilution and 90% extraction, and a scope (cost estimate) of +/-30%, the effect of dilution and extraction are negligible."

IMHO this statement is not worth the paper it is printed on as most anyone would tell you that these are key factors that can amke it or break it!!

Given that both TDC and Comaplex are junior companies, and both are in the process of defining and hopefully developing their respective gold deposits by both open pit and underground mining methods, I simply leave it to the reader to answer the question: Why are the TDC numbers so much more optimistic?

By the way, the answer isn't:
- YGP is better located. Both may require fly-in/out. Meliadine will have an all-weather road (50 km?) to Rankin Inlet that hosts ahigh quality airstrip built originally for military jets for northern patrol. Rankin can receive supplies by boat/barge. Trucking to Yellowknife is very expensive!
- TDC have an excellent management team. Prior to becoming Tyhee Development Corp. the comany was called Mongolia Gold and run by Weeb & co. After their project in Mongolia proved futile they changed the name to TDC and acquired the YGP. Oh yes, Comaplex is currently owned 15.6% by Agnico Eagle Mines (AEM).

LOCATION IS CRITICAL. While operations in southern Canada use cut-offs well below 1 gpt., high arctic operations have to use higher cut-offs. Tyhee's fuel, delivered to its camp has never cost more than $1.03 per litre, GST and road tax paid! It is possible to fly from Vancouver to the Yellowknife Gold Project, tour the property and return to Vancouver for dinner on the same day. If a large electric motor is fried at the YGP, it can be replaced within hours from one of the suppliers in Yellowknife. The same is true for other supplier who provide explosives, Caterpillar parts, heavy duty truck, loader, parts etc. There are a number of heavy duty electricians, mechanics, etc. available in Yellowknife, only a 20 minute flight from Ormsby.

Trucks service to Yellowknife is relatively inexpensive. A tanker truck can fill-up in Edmonton and make it to Yellowknife for $4,000. A B-train slightly more with twice the fuel.and Back-hauls are rather inexpensive.

Some on Tyhee’s management team developed a gold mine in Mongolia and it was constructed on schedule and on budget. In 1996, after pouring the first 15 dore bar, the Mongolian Government imposed a sales tax of 10% on gold recovered (an NSR of 10%). They also applied an Emergency Gold Tax of 4%, plus an assay, refinery, insurance levy of 14%. And finally, the 4 year tax free status negotiated prior to start-up was abrogated. All told, the project could not support the 28% NSR and was shut down.

Comaplex's PA provides excellent development of minerecoverable resources that result in the production of 2.2M oz gold. YGP total resources in their PA is 1.6M oz Au. Note that CMF provides detailed production tonnages and oz gold by year while TDC's PA only provides annual cash flow. Why not show details?? It appears that TDC have not provided the details to avoid questions.

Tyhee's Yellowknife Gold Project has increased its resource base by 30% since the publication of its Preliminary Assessment. Because it appeared that they knew there was going to be a significant change in the project, they wisely chose not to get involved in publishing details of a project that would be superseded with an update or a feasibility study.

Detailed review of TDC's PA (Mineral Resources Pg 34-35) shows that Ormsby resources are based on a 1.25 g/t cutoff while those at Nic Lake are based on 1.1 g/t cutoff and then arbitrarily allocated 25% to open pit and 75% to underground!! UNBELIEVABLE! This conflicts with everything else that they indicated previously.

The cut-offs Tyhee uses were clearly engineered on the basis of Whittle Pit simulations. These vary on a block by block basis. A summary of a 1.1 gpt cut-off attests to the fact that there are large number of "sub-ore" blocks that occur adjacent to the "ore" blocks.

Another real question for TDC is with regarding to the Process Plant (pg 57) design criteria that states "Design Head Grade" is 5.3 g/t!! UNBELIEVABLE!! Considering that the average resource grade is about 3.4 g/t, after dilution etc. it would be optimistic to assume a head grade of 3 g/t.
This clear conflict again demonstrates that the TDC PA may be full of errors, omissions and conflicts and the projected economics may be a simple result of overly optimistic grades, tonnages and costs.

Whereas feed comes from several sources with three different cut-offs (1.10 pit at Nicholas Lake, 1.25 pit at Ormsby, 2.50 gpt underground Nicholas Lake and Ormsby) it should not be difficult to understand that feed grades will vary, varying between the reported resource grade at 3.52 (1.25 gpt cut-off) and 5.5 gpt (2.5 gpt cut-off). Simple minded people may find this confusing. Knowledgeable people, for example, professionals in the business or those with professional designations understand that libeling a professional is grounds for legal or disciplinary action which may result in severe penalties. Furthermore, professionals who are aware of misconduct by other professionals are REQUIRED to report this to their associations for disciplinary action.

And finally, I suppose the Market is right again: TDC closed at $0.16 with a market cap of $25M; CMF closed at $3.25 with a market cap of $151M (and they own only 78% of the Meliadine gold project!).

Complex has mineral plus oil and gas revenue amounting to over $4 million per year. And, they have $30 million in their treasury. They may have as much as $7 million in capital assets attributable to their oil and gas side. They also have several other properties, which would add some value as well.

You decide whether Resources or Reserves or anything inbetween is reasonable.

Would anyone care to comment and make an intelligent review of this post. Is it fact or fiction."

Reserves and resources are enormously different. There is nothing in-between (see NI 43-101).