agm and other updates, page-8

heh savadamoney

hoped you double checked the report that watso referred, to, as watso did make a mistake. there was a difference between holes cgrc002, and cgrc003 - but this is explained by the different angle of the drilling - hole 002 was drilled at 60 degreesn, whereas hole 003 was drilled straight down. hole 003, was obviously designed to get the continuity of the high grade shoots indicated in hole 002, and the results would have been a further 40 or 50 metres further down dip, at which stage the best intersection was 1 m at 36gt (and the true width for this intersection would be more like 65cm - after allowing for the angle of the drilling relative to the westerly dipping shoot).

the result still shows the variability of the results over a relative small section of the shoot

watso has double checked the results for holes 005, and holes 007, and it seems that the company made a mistake in the august report, because in the following quarterly, the company indicates that hole 007 was drilled at 90 degrees (compared to 60 degrees in the august report). never the less, the result shows that further down dip, the mineralization was virtually no existent, and once again, after allowing for the angle of the drilling, then the true width had narrowed down to two intersections of about 70 cm each, at 2.1g/t and 1.4 g/t.

watso's guess is that the company will try and define the limits of the higher grade shoots (eg drill a hole to interect the shoot, half way between the intersections of holes 005, and hole 007

it does not matter which way, one looks at it, it is highly unlikely that the drilling will prove up much in the way of reserves, or resources