"He extolled the apparently superb drilling results as being preferrable to a mine of proven expanding production and therefore expanding revenue."

I did no such thing.

""then every miner that has the $140,000,000+ infrastructure and superior grades even then that SGR had, should not mine but simply explore. "

You are trying to put words in my mouth now.

Rather I point out that it is preferable to have 3 or 4 or 5 operating mines with expanding prodcution and being served by one central mill over a 30 or 40 or 50 year project life than to have 1 mine with expanding production for a 10 or 15 year mine life. and if it takes 5 years to establish that project then that is a reasonable investement of time to make in exchange for the 10 to 20 times multiple in life of mine profit that will result. Miners should mine... but they should not develop a deposit unitl they are ready to and they can not mine it untill they develop it.

Think of it this way... if Goldcorp would have done a deal with the union at the Dickenson mine in 1995 and had focused on production from known resources there where would G be today... out of business I suggest! Instead their hundreds of millions of $'s in infrastructure "sat idle" (not really - becasue they were doing development the last 3 years costing over $100million) for 5 years before prodcution began again and the result is the G we know today.

"And if that elephant that seems to be shaping up very nicely does show itself, the skyrocketing SP will send this history to the dustbin"

I suggest "if" can reasonable be replaced with "when".

e