"when GNH was incorporated and started exploring, over 10 years ago, that was the time that the stat 1 in 2000 had some accuracy for GNH ...in other words over ten years ago GNH had a 1 in 2000 chance of being a mine/ ...today no, they have a much better chance obviously."

I hear ya Danny and I see more of your point. However, I would still say that even though, looking at the success so far, GNH could still be one of the one or two thousand that doesn't make it to a mine. The fact that it has had success and is looking very good could have been said about many other finds that didn't make it to the economical phase. Do I believe this to be the case? No, which is why I own shares now. Because you have pared down the ratio of success to failure does not remove the significance of the original ratio. If GNH failed to be a mine it would always have been on of the one or two thousand that didn't make it. Because mines fail to materialize for all manner of reasons not even related to mineralization the possibility of failure can't be removed. I do agree with you that one feels the odds of failure for GNH are getting skimpy but the one in one or two thousand companies is based on actual real data whereas your ratio is based more a ball park idea. In the end we're just dancing with perspectives because we both have hope....Golden Hope. Sorry for the pun. :)