Recall your Pin Cushion Drilling Challenge (blindly probing into the big room hoping to hit the legs on the coffee table - representing an anomaly which hopefully contain minerals in concentration sufficient to constitute an economic mineral deposit). Will the SOUTH END of DE1 appears to be TERMINATED along a Shear Zone according to news last Fall. However, since then the Professional Geology TEAM at NOT have further developed their Working Model (apparently a very functional conceptual Geological MODEL) for the entire Ring of Fire and have clearly and concisely stated that they are now definitely dealing with a Plutonic Intrusion at the center (to the NORTH of DE1 and DE2 area(s)) which has given rise to the separation of it's self from the surrounding Country Rock (the OUTSIDE area(s)) by the formation of a third distinct Boundary AREA that has now been designated as the "Ring of Fire Intrusion" (RFI). They also clearly state that this Conceptual Model that is NOW WORKING "VERY WELL" for them distinctly demonstrates that the SOURCE Magma that fed the Conduit obviously is found in the North of the RFI with respect to the southern perimeter of the Ring of Fire. What NEEDS to be kept in mind (among many other physical conditions, etc.)is that Magma will flow in and direction and any distance but always due to and away from the origin of the Magma as long as the Magma is applying sufficient force on the Magma Flow to cause it to move through the weakest proximal portions of the Containing (and constraining) surrounding ROCK. From news last FALL we know that the North East portion of DE1 "Skied Out" meaning it was ERODED away. With the Conceptual Model that is now giving Noront Resources so much Drilling Success we also can feel very safe in thinking that the "SOURCE" or, what I will prefer to think of as the "UP STREAM", extension of the DE1 Conduit has been removed (cut off or eroded) from discovery proximal to the North extent of DE1 as DE1 is currently defined by DRILLING. Does this mean that the Conduit does not reappear in the existing rock somewhere in the North or North East or North West? Based on what we have been told Noront Resources now plans on starting DRILLING to the North and North West of DE1's KNOWN location. Do they want to prove DE1 (or some other Conduit) does not exist up there (Null Hypothesis) and are willing to spend millions to that end? Probe Resources has demonstrated they have a Massive Sulfide OUTCROP North West of DE1 and very encouraging Soil Sample Analysis North of DE1. Noront Resources has specifically stated that DE1 is Cut Off to the South in the southern portion of DE1 and do believe it MAY be lost in faulting and shearing. How many meters (or 100's-1000's) deeper could the SOUTH WEST extension of DE1 be? How much Counter Clockwise rotation of the Plutonic Intrusion has occurred in the area of this cut off? Has much of its Mineralization has been leached and thermally eroded in the region of the cut off? Is it that that leaching and thermal eroding is what has given rise to the increased enrichment of what we know of the DE1 Conduit (the deposit)? Does the Conduit cross over the RFI uninterrupted and find a big hole or large gap in the Country Rock to the South EAST where it can get trapped on the opposite side of large Magnetite anomalies and thus accumulate there and become the Kiser Load (or is it the El Dorado Mother Load so many seen to have in place of sugar plums)? You need to be more confident Bentonstocks! You demonstrate you are very capable of dissecting someone else's attempts to provide explanation and picking at it with no context (explanation, justification, or rational alternative proposition) when not being completely out of context with the other posters attempt to convey this reasoning based on his use and interpretation of the info provided in the News Releases (all the News Releases and in reasonable context) By your questioning of the other posters proposition(s) and your ability to be non-informative as to what you are capable of understanding geologically, you imply that by incorrectly discounting and actually failing to properly counter the plausibility of the other posters proposition you are somehow correct about something. What exactly is it you want anyone to think could well be real or plausible that is not much better explained in the News Releases, though the News Releases fly in the face of what you seem to desire others believe can be true and plausible? Old Joe PS: We can work on this such that we really do help others make true and accurately informed decisions, using what is actually known as opposed to what some may desire to be real regardless of it's implausibility GIVEN the KNOWN FACTS!