Ann: Quarterly Exploration and Activities Report , page-13

re: Ann: Quarterly Exploration and Activities... Okra, I have been watching the developments with this company over the past two years and find that the reporting on the face of it is good quality. Good mapping etc however after reading all the data and coming from an exploration arena knowing all the vagaries of the process I am far more interested in what is not said than what is said. Omissions in regard to exploration process are significant in all reporting.
Any good Geo will explore the known first and expand exploration from this. This company has a couple of known locations where first pass holes or trenches have hit some reasonable AU grades. The exploration manager is according to reports a consultant Geo, The Company is run by a guy in Melbourne and the exploration is widespread over a large area around 8-10 square kilometres. Its a big area.
There are anomalies in soil associated within proximity of the holes that have recovered some good Au grades and according to reports they ran an IP survey. The reports have not identified if the IP survey was run over the top of the anomalous soil results or the holes that returned good Au grades.
The IP survey has indicated some chargeability anomalies at depth. These IP anomalies are indicative of sulphide mineralisation or possibly graphitic shales. What the content of these anomalies is, no one knows as the anomalies don't appear to have been tested by the company.
This appears to me to be unusual from an exploration standpoint. The last report suggested an RC rig had been engaged to drill some depth yet the guy running the operation suggests that their were problems with the rig and still there are no indications that any drill holes have been punched into these IP anomalies.
Solid IP anomalies wont always return positive results from drilling however if they are associated will soil anomalies and some good Au grades from shallow first pass holes then you would certainly want to be banging a few deeper holes into them.
Mineralisation can be widespread in areas, however economically viable intrusive ore bodies/envelopes are for the most part are relatively small, they might only be several hundred metres long and the range of widths can be a few metres wide to hundreds. The depth is often the key issue. So exploring an area of 8 sq kilometres and not focussing on the known could be suggested is a an expansive allocation of investor capital.
Not testing known IP chargeable anomalies at depth associated with surface results is questionable. The company has had the IP results in hand for several months.
Reporting is a requirement, its also a public relations exercise.This company is run by a good PR guy. My only suggestion if your a holder is look for the the things that are not said. And if you have any questions ring the company and ask to speak to the head of the Company. If he cant answer your questions directly and wont take your call then consider your options.
Any shareholder is entitled to ask questions.
In conclusion ask the tangible question at the current SP and the number of shares in the market is this tenement or current exploration results quantify to a value worth 35 million.
Cheers
JP