Sculpin: "You forgot the geophysics and you can,t compare complete results with incomplete results. Thats like comparing apples to oranges. tsk,tsk,tsk."

Sculpin, old pal, since it's late and and we're both probably tired, let's turn down the house lights and take a trip to the past for a minute, shall we? You and I go back to the Noront days together. Maybe you don't remember me, but I remember you. I valued your posts bigtime. Remember back in 2007 and 2008 when NOT was pulling up the richest drill core anyone had seen in a decade? Do you rememember how they were forced by the Exchange to write in their news releases that their deposit was "conceptual in nature"? It was obvious that 100m intercepts of 2-5% nickel, 1% copper, 2 g/t platinum and 5 g/t paladium was not "conceptual." It was real.

But, Sculpin, we both know geophysical anomalies are not the same thing as actual mineral deposits. Noront had quite a number that didn't pan out. Geophysical anomalies as mineral deposits are "conceptional in nature" until proven otherwise. So you can't tsk, tsk, tsk me for not comparing St. Elias's geophysics to Arequipa's actual proven gold deposit. That is like comparing apples to oranges.

I grant you we are dealing with incomplete results. My comparison was based on what we know today. That's all. Tomorrow is a new day. And when all the results are in and tallied, my comparison may be moot.