Just went through the Dec corp Presentation. Here are a few observations

- Slide 13: PRB performance comparison with peers and index is consistent with what discussed by Jeb Handwerger (The Mining Report Interview...see previous posts) confirming outperforming PRB.

- Slide 8: High grade in the SE: This show the x-section of the SE HGZ, notably from hole 256 to 2000SE. There is a slight dip of all zones (low grade envelope, 0.5-1gpt; higher grade core, 1-3gpt; and the HGZ, greater than 3gpt) as they head toward the SE. Given the available information, it would be reasonable to assume that the deposit continues in a similar fashion, i.e. dipping at the same slope. If one is brave enough an extrapolation from 2000mSE to approximately the opposite shore (over a 1000m extension) could be carried out resulting in the HGZ deposit to be located between -200m to -400m, i.e. at the depth approximately between 600m to 800m below the surface.

However, a deep drill which can do something like 1000m (or better, a bit more) would be needed to cover the depth of the deposit. For planning purposes, again based on the available information, a deeper drill (capable of drilling greater than 1000m, say 1500m deep) would be required if drilling is extended East, on land beyond the shoreline (over the Potential JV or 100% PRB).

One option is to start drill on the 100% PRB land (we don't have to wait for the water to freeze), ignoring the potential JV with the 2 forestry companies all together (this portion is not that wide before one crosses over to the 100% PRB).

If we keep on going then there would be a need to sort out NIK (why not just buy the whole company for about $1M (current mkt cap is $0.67M and the company is almost broke).

Anyway, my crystal ball says this winter drilling on ice would increase the HGZ by a factor of ~2, just by eye-balling the extrapolated zone.

This is just my opinion folks. Any other opinion/guess?

goldhunter