I think it was Mrs. Wilcox that asked this question awhile back. The initial response was that (paraphrasing here) "one should always be diversified." Well, that was always my policy in the past. I've been investing in mining stocks since 2001, and was fortunate to be in early on some major gainers. Over the years, as I recognized some drill results as more exceptional than others, I invested more heavily in those, but still remained considerably diversified. However, when Noront's Windfall results of approximately 5 meters of approximately 1300 grams/tonne of gold came out (and having previously decided not to "chase" the stock price of Aurelian when it jumped from less than a dollar to over 2 dollars after the trading halt when the initial news came out of their phenomenal drill results in Ecuador, and seeing it run up to $20 in several weeks time - and shortly thereafter run to around $30) I began to re-think this standard philosophy about being diversified. I felt like I was missing out on some big gains by being broadly diversified. I was tripling and quadrupling some initial investments within a year or two, but making less than that on many others (and losing on a few others also). But when the initial drill results came out on the Double Eagle up in the James Bay Lowlands of Ontario, I reconsidered again. Is there ever a time when you break the standard rules - i.e., "always be diversified"? Of course, if you know it is a "sure thing" then that would be a reason to "go all in" on something. In other words, there might be an exception to the rule. How do you know when something is a "sure thing"? Ultimately, you cannot. That is why insurance companies always put an "act of God" clause in their policies. There are many things that cannot be foreseen. For example, when I thought that little could go wrong with IMA Exploration, after seeing they were hitting terrific silver grades over exceptional lengths in a country that was fairly stable and fairly "mining friendly" (i.e., Argentina), I made a sizeable (for my financial resources) investment. I was fortunate to buy in at a very low price, but bought more at higher prices, as the terrific grades of similarly long lengths kept being reported. Then, out of the blue, Aquiline sues IMA for some impropriety in regards to a confidentiality agreement. No public investor could have seen this coming. The stock price dropped like a rock, and I sold the same day. Aquiline had previously lost a substantial amount of their stock price because there were working in a province of Argentina that decided to ban all open pit mining (which had never been done before). That was another "out of the blue" unpredictable-type event that severely impacted mining exploration and development values in that part of Argentina (I think it may have been the Rio Negro province, if my recollection serves me). I also had a nice silver exploration company's (Oremex) stock price drop because of villagers in Mexico voting not to allow them to further use the surface to further develop their mineral resources (basically forcing the company to pay the villagers off with all kinds of financial benefits in order to gain their votes to proceed). I held other shares in companies working in Canada who were given trouble from native Indians and from environmentalists that negatively affected their ability to continue their operations, and hurt their share price. There are other factors I have not mentioned that can have a negative effect on a mining stock's share price (e.g., political instability, or election of Marxist leaders that want to "nationalize" most businesses, including mining - think of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador).

If one wants to be 'totally' sure and secure, one can invest in blue chip mining companies. But one will make little money there, as they are so public and so heavily invested in, that their probable future mining successes are practically priced into the present price. But if one wants to make money, one makes an investment with a smaller company that has shown significant indications of mining success. Noront is the company that is working in a good area (a country that is politically stable, as well as mining friendly, and recognizes the benefits to their national economy from mining activity). Noront has the historically unprecedented (in Canada, at least) drill results of nickel. The fact that nickel ore bodies occur in clusters is also indicative of the likelihood of significant growth of a proven ore body. All these things are so obvious to one who has been studying nickel drill reports and nickel mining, that it makes recognition of the significance of Noront's find as easy as "shooting fish in a barrel".

Knowing the above facts, one might think that an exceptional nickel deposit like that at McFauld's Lake was worth "bending the rules" on the age-old wisdom of being diversified. For those of you with a more Biblical bent, consider the parable of Jesus about the pearl expert who found a pearl that he recognized as so siginificant, that he sold everything he had in order to finance the purchase of a field containing the valuable pearl. If Jesus' approval of this "exception to the rule" has merit in your view, then it must be allowed to modify Solomon's wisdom in Ecclesiastes about diversification. I'll paste the verses below for those who have an interest.

Bottom line - having read many drill reports since 2001, and recognizing Noront's drill results as phenomenal, and knowing, also from experience, that when there are these types of ore bodies, they are likely to be accompanied by others, I sold approximately 40 mining stocks in the space of a few days to buy as much Noront as I could afford, knowing that the stock price was substantially undervalued. See the verses below for those that are interested.

I know Noront is as close to a sure winner as one will ever find in the mining investment world. Sure, a nuclear missile shot by accident, and way off course, could strike McFauld's lake and contaminate everything and prevent development -- but that is a risk so remote, that I'm willing to accept it. Sure - the Canadian government could become fickle and decide that they no longer wanted to support the mining industry (which provides a huge amount of emploment and gross domestic product for Canada) and create new laws to make it financially difficult to continue mineral exploration in the area. Sure, the labs could be in cahoots with corrupt mining executives and be putting out false assay results, etc., etc. But if you weight the remote possibility of such things happening against the certainty of what has been already found, and the almost certain likelihood of finding more - then total investment, or "going all in" on Noront makes sense.

It is way past my bed time, so I'll wish you all a good night.

rodg45