Hoov and Glori can both be right.

It is a question of the perspective of the person looking at the data. One is a scientist who tilts his thinking to scientific pursuits.

The other is a busnissman who views things from the influences of financial considerations.

In fairness to Glori taking some heat here, his research came in some way from a discussion he and I had on the phone last week. (I'm just to dumb to actually look it up like he did)....... We are both business driven and as such make determinations on risk reward ratio's......not scientific analysis.

How many times have scientists been on the cusp of a great discovery and the money "suits" pull the plug!

How many times have the money "suits" allowed the scientists free reign to look for something that ended up being fascinating scientificly, but not worth a tinkers damn to the marketplace.

Lar is absolutely correct that there is no conclusive evidence that there is or isn't an economical model here. He thinks this is a good scientific probability as he thinks like a scientist who wants to discover something new!

Glori is absolutley correct, that from a business perspective, you put your financial resources where they have the quickest and highest probability of success. He thinks like a businessman who wants to prove value much higher and quicker with the minimum amount of inputs.

This is the magic of being a CEO of any company.........Knowing how to allocate your resources while lending the maximum credence to the scientific possibility, while at the same time maximizing financial potential.

I tend to lean to Glori's thinking that I would spend my resources making swiss cheese out of the most promising target. Larry is saying that this may well be the most promising target, with the next set of results.

Frankly, I hope Lar is right and Glori and I are full of it!

good day for GNH owners...............carry