With all due respect, I agree that "tonnage" is a key factor in determining the economic viability of any mining project. What I am implying is that because this is an underground mining scenario, tonnes (and grade) closer to surface have more positive impact on the economic attractiveness (i.e. IRR and payback) for the mining of the Eagle's Nest deposit using a DCF methodology than tonnes at depth. This is because the former will be mined earlier than the latter.

Diamond drilling is generally used for two purposes.....definition and exploration. The former is used to say move tonnage previously considered say from the "inferred" to the "indicated" category. The latter is by definition, used to discover new mineralization. What I am saying is that at this particular point in NOT's history of exploration in the ROF, I would be spending much more $$$ on exploration on the rest of their holdings rather than drilling off the Eagle's Nest at depth. Even if they hit new mineralization at depth, the economics, as described above, would not significantly improve. Hitting new mineralization elsewhere relatively close to surface would have quite the opposite affect I would think! In addition, if the new mineralization was in the form of potentially significant amounts of Au, then the whole potential economic scenario for NOT would in my mind change dramatically.

Pure exploration drilling in my mind = high expectations = upwards SP pressure.

I hope that my explanation clarifies my position.

Respectfully submitted

geoprof