Hi shakey, what a question to put someone on the spot. LOL

I suppose there is no true answer to that question, it would matter what level of risk you wanted to expose your money to. And the timeline factor also comes into play, however I will give your question my best shot on what I know.

 If you want lower risk, I would say park your money into NOT, reason here being we know they got the goods. The upside on NOT isn't as good as some of the other area plays, but the risk is much lower also. The thing I have tried to tell people is have no fear one of the the area plays hits a big score, it won't hurt NOT's share price but add to it. You hear some talk about NOT being worth 10% of the value of its proven mineralized dirt. Well that goes up if more mineable discoveries are discovered in this area. I believe over the long haul,  buying shares of NOT at todays share  price will make an investor good % gains.

If you have the stomach for higher risk, I would buy FNC. I have posted my reasons earlier why I like FNC. Yes it is high risk due to the fact they have proven nothing, we have no way of figuring out the value of their dirt. However from the past EM survey, I think the chance of them having part of the motherload is good. With a market cap of only $50 million and a low outstanding share count of 27 million, if this stock does come up with the dirt of value, it is by far the cheapest stock with the most upside in the McFauld's Lake area.

If you want medium risk, by this I mean stocks that have already done financing and are now putting the drill to try and prove up some value of their dirt. In this group I would go with the basket approach. Buy a bit of PRB, FWR, BMK, SPQ-KWG, in this approach you are spreading your risk around. Only one of the basket would need to hit for you to make money.

I hope this helps answer your question. I am no guru, I can't make investment decisions for anyone, nor do I want to. I can only offer up my reasoning on how I see things. Believe me, I am often wrong. 

Al