While agreeing with the sentiment I am a sucker for a challenge, so for sake of a good argument I am trying:

One does in-fill drilling to up upgrade the comfidence of the resource that one claims to have.
This is done to determine exactly how much and what grades the resource is so one can plan and design an appropriate mine. It also helps out in the conviction of prospective financiers to fund development.
Feasibility studies are done to determine if a mine is actually economically viable. So one does in-fills if one is serious about developing a mine.

Basicly it establishes a floor price for a stock. Fairly mundane.

New discoveries on the other hand get the attention of potential investors however discoveries are usually a flash in the pants and the price usually returns after days or months. Rarely is a discovery significant enough to sustain a fairly high sp afterwards.

I am for both. However in Noront's case due to the vast land hold and multiple possibilities after already demonstrated multiple resources, drilling for potential additional discoveries has a strong attraction. I draw attention to the 10 potential ( favoured, there are more? ) targets mentioned by Hoov in his report.

Sorry, the inferrence that out trippling of tonnage has done little for our sp rings hollow to me. In normal times that would/should have almost trippled our price. That did not happen because other factors/forces have trumped that.
THe increased tonnage, however long it's effect will be held down, can not do so forever. True value is just that and it will find it's worth in time. The devaluation that we see can not last forever, it just seems so.

Love to present and received counter arguments.