Funny we have not had much discussion since April 17, 2013, & the correction to the Hole#8 drill depth. Always seemed strange to many of us that from 213.54 meter to the original drill depth of 330 meter there were no numbers (intercepts).

Or, was it tested, we continually wondered & asked, and were usually told the same thing from various people with different opinions. Nothing wrong with different opinions, but it did just not make sense, IMO, and many others?

Nine intercepts from 31.70 meters to 213.54 meters, but who ever knew what was really tested?

Who ended up being right, & who ended up being wrong? I guess at this stage, does it even matter? Well, I say it does, so let us look at who said what & you be the judge:

Company Correction on April 17, 2013:

It was announced that DDH-TE-08 was drilled to a depth of 330.0 metres when it was actually drilled to a depth of 233.0 metres.

Who seemed to be right ? (parts of a post from Sculpin on Feb 26, 2013):

For any geo to look at hole #8 , some questions should automatically arise. There have been released to the public that hole #8 has had 9 minute sections of core assayed, that all have had considerable gold grades in them ranging from 1.18 g/t to 4.907 g/t gold. It is very interesting to see NO results from below 214 meters when this hole was drilled to 330meters. When you look at the corresponding geophysics, you can plainly see that the mineralization feeding the top portion of the hole that was tested, derived from an anomaly of high chargeability and high resitivity which roughly begins intensly at the 220meter level, where sampling has not gone.

The most significant thing to be analysed from the hole # 8 drill assays, is the fact that pieces of the core assayed are extremely small. For a 4 inch sample of core to be containing gold, should suggest the richness of the area as well as the notion that a couple grams of gold in a section this small is usually never seen, and thats where assays are extremely important for establishing a better sense of grade, by choosing longer intercepts of 1 meter for example. There appears to be consistent gold going deeper towards a high chargeability anomaly as well as seeing the gold grade increasing at depth, the closer you get to the anomaly, then nothing, no more samples from where should be the richest part of the core.

Who seemed to be wrong ? (parts of a post from Primed on Feb 17, 2013):