A couple of things. First- any drilled hole is a "spin of the roulette wheel".  If you drill 1 hole, you get one spin. If you drill 10 you get 10 spins. So obviously your odds of success are better. I agree that drilling just 1 hole is risky- but so are 10. That's why JB has devoted so much effort to improve the targeting. I suggested drilling several holes, to improve the odds over drilling one hole, but acknowledging the odds would be less than drilling 10.  Now- if we had unlimited time and money- I'd go ahead and drill 20-30 holes. If the logic is to simply increase the odds that's what you would do- and at the same time map out the claim even better. But, of course, that is not the case- and not only do we not have the luxury of drilling as many holes as we would like- so far- we haven't managed to drill even one. Now- if there were no downside and potential for loss by simply waiting- we could wait indefinitely until we could drill that magic ideal number of holes. But the reality is that we don't have that luxury. Like I said before- stuff happens- I won't detail all the possibilities- but they are myriad and infinite. I don't know how to calculate the odds of some existential disaster to the company occurring- but, unfortunately, it is far from zero. 

So- yes- I am willing to tolerate lower odds of drilling success- although- the whole point of having confidence in JB is that he has scientifically and exhaustively defined our drilling targets to increase those odds- willing to tolerate those odds because it is also risky not to drill. Again- we are not looking at those odds in a vacuum. They must be compared to the risk of continuing not to be drilling. I guess I come out on the side of trying to drill- even if it's not the ideal campaign that we would carry out in a perfect world.