Mate, you should be a bit more thorough when you read. R.e....

Mate, you should be a bit more thorough when you read.

R.e. point 1 - a silly question followed by a silly question.

Let's say you drill 50 holes and one gets a hit, your expectation of a hit is 1/50 or 2%. If you drill 50 holes and 50 have hits, it's an entirely different story. Now these don't equate to true probabilities because we can never truly ascertain the population probability, however we can say that asymptotically as the number of holes we drill increases, we should see the sample average tend towards the true mean. This should be fairly self explanatory stuff, as you hit more times, your expectation of hitting again increases.

Of course the underlying premise of this is based on the assumption that there is some sort of distribution from which we are sampling, which is determined by the lithology of the location. If the distribution density cobalt across the earth was perfect identically distributed, then in fact this wouldn't hold true as we would be equally likely to see cobalt across the globe and the likelihood of a drill returning cobalt, given that one nearby had returned cobalt would not improve. We know this is not the case, due to the formation of veins we can say that the cobalt is conditionally distributed. 

R.e. Point 1. Once again, read a little more carefully. I did not say 'I expect to get 50 hits in the Jormeny adit'. I said 'to make the point...'  The point being an extreme case of the above point, where hitting 50 times, would drastically alter the conditional expectation of the next hit, thus implying that one hit moves us in the right direction, if only marginally. Therefore the hits they have made so far have moved us in the right direction.

As I write this, I wonder if it really need explaining... I'm sure this is fairly uncontroversial. If there were no advantage to using the DD's and getting hits, there would be no point in doing it. The entire point is to establish a case for what's in the ground.

One last point is that the variance of a sample decreases as the number of samples increases. This is just another way of saying that more positive results (or negative) improves our predictive ability to forecast what we might find and this should feed directly into the SP if the market believes the results and therefore prices them in.

TB