Mark,

You said at the end of your post

"They should report Cut-off 0.3 g/t, same as the Initial for easy comparison and no market extreme reactions, as long as the avg grade is constant or better."

Agreed with you 100%, especially the part I underlined. The results from the latest data reported on 13 March and later 20March 2012 show improved average grades and some short sections with spectacular grade, 24g/t for 0.8m for hole BL 12-149. Hole BL12 157 had some spike of the similar grade (see section 200mSE), in the order of 20+g/t. In addition there are some long enough sections with high grades, e.g. 23.6m @1.9 g/t (hole 154) and 31m @ 2.7g/t (hole 157). In addition, hole 156 has 28m @ 1.8g/t and 7m @ 3.3 g/t. These are significant improvement over the results published in the last 101 report... and fit in well with the last bit of your statement "or better". Yes, they are certainly better and are open in all direction. Also, grades are observed to get better with depth.

Playing around with cut-off grade for the purpose of estimating PRB deposit size, before a bonafide updated calculations by NI qualified people is released, by analysts at financial institutions does not conform with the normal industry standards which must be consistently applied to all companies, not just PRB.

goldhunter