I do appreciate that. Following up in that sense as well, how are they sometimes decided, the expenditures between mapping versus new technology development? In the field of geophysics, a lot of the technologies that we have and use came out as sheer coincidence, such as World War II weapons exploration at the University of Toronto and places like that. When the department sits down and says, “We're going to put money in geosciences, mapping versus technology”, how is that conversation held as far as, “Hey, we should maybe spend some more money on geophysical research versus mapping“? The 5:1 ratio was very useful, but is there some thinking about what we should do about geoscience technology, particularly for the hard-rock mineral industry?
On May 5th, 2015. See this statement in context.