cohens and lomond vs tubal cain

The Cohens Reef was worked by the old-timers (which doesn't includePeterH) between the 1860s and 1914 when many went off to war, resulting in the production of 1.42m tons of ore at an average grade of slightly over 1 ounce (32g/t) to the ton (or approx 1.5moz).

In those days, the old-timers use a cut off grade around 15 g/t so there is still a lot of gold left in the well-worked reef.

Cohens was worked down to approx 800m which compares favourably with yesterdays announcement that the drilling program at Tubal Cain has doubled the vertical extent of the dyke bulge to 600m and still
remains open at depth!

In 2004, Goldstar discover the Lomond reef which runs adjacent to Cohens. The Consols shaft, which extends to 700m, intersects the Lomond Reef and has recorded the presence of visible gold of +1oz material.

Due to limited drilling on the Lomond, GDR has estimate a grade range of 7-25 g/t. Using the conservative estimate of 7g/t, Goldstar's geological model for Lomond predicted a potential resource of 3.1mt for 700,000oz. What if grades at Eureka, Cohens,
Lomond and Tubal Cain were similar? had similar predictability?

Something I have said on a number of ocasions and that we should continue to bear in mind...the last time GDR defined/upgraded the exploration potential of its tenements to 3.25moz, Eureka was defined as hosting 31,000 oz and Tubal Cain was defined as hosting
220,000 oz. Clearly, the drilling programmes at these two proximal targets has substantially increased the gold resource potential of the Walhalla project and the Ross Creek Line in particular.

For instance, the current geological model at Eureka defines 430,000 tonnes of high grade quartz reefs in a range of 12-16 g/t PLUS 900,000 tonnes of highly mineralised sediments up to 12 g/t. This looks like well in excess of 500,000 oz - A far cry from 31,000oz of
contained gold!

At Tubal Cain, do we have another 1+moz deposit here? Well, the geological model is NOT far off. At over twice the depth (600m) and twice the number of reefs (15), I would think so! Again, a far cry from the original conservative estimate of 220,000oz.

Lots of news flow over the next couple of months. Keep your powder dry and yourself fully invested.

Also, have a good look at NorthWest Resources (NWR)...and read the recent article by Alan Trench in Resourcestocks or on the nwr website. IMO, this company also has oodles of potential!

http://www.nw-resources.com.au/investor_relations/news_and_announcements/media_articles.phtml