Well, just got off the phone with Sculpin after approx 1 hour conversation. It's past 03:00 for him, (probably 03:30 by the time this post is done, cause I know he's staying up to read it) and he's still digging up info. Thanks for all your work Sculpin. It's not fair either to pinpoint just Sculpin, I looked today and we had 6 pages of posts, and there's 40 on a page, unreal, 240 posts in one day, so thanks to everyone! It was a day with so many different views, and so many emotions. This is a great HUB!

Anyway, I read his post, I guess if my names in it, I better do some DD and respond.

We had a very good conversation regarding this NR & the Mining Stock Report. For any of you that thought this latest NR did not hold much value, I suggest you take the time to go over this report, maybe a few times. Personally, I went over it much too quick this afternoon, and Sculpin got me thinking otherwise tonight, as we reviewed it together.

I can't cut & paste from it, so I'll just type out just one of the paragraphs, and trust me, there are many more, that show and justify what many of us are thinking:

Assays and Titan 24 geophysical surveys show Tesoro contains large deep anomalies, up to several billion cubic meters in size with high (mostly gold) sulfide content (>1%)

So, what do you all think or read into that?

Like I said Sculpin & I talked for over an hour. We for sure do NOT want to sound like pumpers, but... Quack Quack!

I agree with the several billion cubic meters, cause the anomaly is 3.978 billion when I do my math. That is just the Zona Central!

But, what do we think with the mostly gold high sulfide content of greater than 1%??

When you talk grams per T, it is the same as parts per million (very small). However, 1% is actually 10,000 grams per T. So now what do we do? Can we say lets take 1/10th of that? How about 1/100th of that? Even 1/100th would be 100g/T. He says it, not us! So, why do we use only 1g/T & scale it so much? Not sure, LOL

I know when we do our math, some like it, some don't, for the people especially that don't, that is why I for sure try to always keep it so conservative, so it makes it as believable as possible.

Remember when we say only 1g/T, and scale it to the point that we're actually saying 0.29g/T, and that still gives you a triple digit share price at only $150 per OZ in the ground, but, this report states the mostly gold >1% sulphide content, I hope it just makes everyone realize just how conservative we've been.

This is truly an amazing report, and a NR that I think when people take the time to review it, I think we'll all be very happy with. It is very easy to see the negative from the NR, but I honestly think if we all take the time to review it properly, there will be lots of positive conversation to follow.

BOW2U