There is no conflict between the two instances...
It's inherent in the structure of the deal... with the design of the deal structure resulting in big steps forward and rapid progress with "success" in making the deal work, or "slow and steady wins the race" type of progress without it.
If the deal structure didn't contain that potential as a guarantee that the projects are being advanced in the entering argument, then Scott wouldn't agree to do the deal... ?
They had a plan to enable them to succeed if HKHE's plans moved ahead, and they had a plan to enable them to succeed if they didn't...
The design... always puts the little steps first... as the payment for the option is applied to advancing the project...
So, the HKHE deal funded a nice bit of progress... and then didn't succeed in delivering on more. The end result... is that they advanced the project... but didn't advance it as much as they might have, if HKHE had come through with more... which they might have, if the market conditions hadn't changed, etc.
The current deal... follows the exact same pattern... again showing Scott doing his job, agreeing again to do what he has now, that keeps the project moving ahead right now... whatever it is that happens in making decisions before February.
Progress is occurring... right now... with the work being done on the metallurgy, while you (and others) choose to ignore that (others even fictionalizing that "only" advancing the work on metallurgy... is really just "double checking the assays" to see "if" there is really any value). And, ignoring that steady progress, you carp instead because they're not making more progress, fast enough for you ? And, if they don't take the next "big" steps forward, in February, you'll ignore the steps forward occurring now, and all those before them, while claiming that not taking the next big step forward... means taking a step back ?
Of course, that's wrong...
But, the "vastly better" deal they're discussing now... is purely a product of "luck" and nothing else ?
Of course, that's how the fact in steady progress being made gets explained away as "Scott delivering a string of failures"... that then requires you to explain away the NATURAL result of a steady progression being delivered... as a "fluke" resulting from "luck"... instead of the obvious result of the company executing its plans, a step at a time, as a function of the design in how you do exploration, and as a function of the structure of the deals being done... that has that element of the plan as an inherent element built into the structure of the deal.
You are fictionalizing that there is an "either this - or that" choice to be made between success and failure somewhere... when there just isn't. The ultimate decision others make on taking the "big" step... isn't ever Scott's to make... but, the price being paid to enable the partners in considering taking the big step, requires their performance in delivering the little ones.
So, YES.
Management have a "masterful, purposeful plan of patience"... that has them hope for the best and working to enable it... while not allowing that effort to distract them from the need for planning to benefit from the worst in any case. The result... is that they've steadily improved SRSR's position over time... exactly as I've said... because of a "masterful, purposeful plan of patience" to enable exactly that...
It's been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly, over the last five years...
It's the same "masterful, purposeful plan of patience" that is THE ROUTINE in mineral exploration... which has management proving they're not being stupid about putting their projects at significant risk of failure... rather than advancing them with others help while allowing others to take and realize the market risks.
THAT IS HOW ITS DONE... WHEN ITS DONE RIGHT....
SRSR's been doing it right... and succeeding as a result.
HKHE wasn't able to overcome the threshold in risk reduction that was a negotiated part of their arrangements ? They didn't pull the trigger on the big steps ?
So, HKHE realized the risks... and SRSR didn't. HKHE didn't get the deal... and SRSR did get the project advanced to the next stage as a result of HKHE's participation... which is exactly what planning for that failure in mineral exploration should enable.
I note you've consistently expressed your frustration at Scott's properly persistent patience... including blaming Scott for "the failure" that HKHE experienced... as if the risks were realized by SRSR, because of Scott, instead of by HKHE... because of things well beyond SRSR or HKHE's control ?
Well, Scott got it exactly right... and you've got it wrong... Scott's had it right all along... and you've had it wrong all along.
And, as the posts today prove, it appears you've had it wrong all along... because you still don't understand the basics in the business... which results in you thinking its "an accident" or "luck" when things do work out exactly the way they were PLANNED TO WORK OUT... in the case that things didn't go as perfectly as they might have preferred ?
Scott apparently understands well enough that success in exploration always requires structuring the option on JV deals as "heads I win, tails you lose" arrangements...
That's exactly what we see here is "Heads SRSR wins big, tails SRSR wins less big"...
Now it appears SRSR's persistent effort enabling success in advancing the project... in spite of the persistent effort made touting SRSR's "failure"... have a couple of SRSR's detractors coming unhinged...
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
