You should attempt to manage the risk /reward analysis objectively for each play separately using what you know about each , including present market cap, financial ability, management power, compared to the other plays. Immediatley, you will recognise that NOT is somewhat speculative, but not totally as the others. Logic then tells you that ANY degree of success achieved by non-NOT plays will add leverage to NOT valuation ,price, and risk profile. OK, so a doubling of BMK's price will not necessarily double NOT's, but will be very good for NOT's valuation (assuming BMK's doubling was from drill results). Therefore, each dollar put into BMK presently has a higher risk profile than $1 put into NOT. Combine that with the reality that NOT has such a critical mass of claims, that you should as a second approach assign a value to NOT in situ excluding say windfall, DE1 and DE2 and then ask "would I rather pay $1 for a NOT share of this NOT residual, or $! for a share of BMK" . Do the same for each play, and as an acid test go through a similar exercise with INV , etc. As a backdrop to your assessment, keep in mind that NOT has now lept the $$ hurdle that makes them the natural JV leader, where partial successes are accretive to NOT even if they don't provide the junior partner with financial independence. NOT remains the best place for my next dollar, even though I have about 15% in BMK and TME combined .But that is perhaps just the gambler in me, re-antiing a bit of my NOT gains ! This is not an answer to your question but is the process you need to apply to make objective decisions.For every new material development, repeat the exercise anew. Would be happy to see what you come up with.