soc pmr annual rpt, page-57

dazed,
I am pleased we seem to be able to discuss things a bit more civilly.
firstly, I don't think soc management has done anything wrong that hasn't already been moderated by asx/asic.
My expectation on exploration potential is a fluid process.
In my view, the concept you suggest re larger pit concepts have in fact been tested already, though not necessarily fully and not unambiguously.
I do think that perceptions on HC regarding soc are quite different to what any management may have desired, should they even care about it.
as an example, I believe they IP targets were firstly put forward (by soc) as a bulk disseminated (economic)sulphide possibility.
nothing wrong with that.
When they drill tested castor and arcadia (and Hobbs se?)
this is in fact what was being tested. (but not exclusively)
It is up to each individual how they evaluate the concepts and the probabilities of success.
for some, all undrilled real estate is fair game.
that might be true, though scales and indications might mean different things to different individuals.
what I am saying, is based on ALL testing and DATA (disclosed) and amplitude (and frequency) of reporting.
As a result, my opinion of likelihood of bulk sulphides has lowered substantially, to the point where I believe it to be a duffer. I may well be wrong, but I put my money where my intuition goes.
Sure, narrow reefs may augment bulk economies, but unless you have a very sharp idea on volume and economies, the fact versus concept disconnect, is in my opinion much larger than if bulk economies were hit in the guts (or edges) of zones selected from IP etc for initial targeting.
If bulking out a pit were the only concept, why not frill Hobbs middle east before SE ?
some might say because of beaurocratic logistics..
some might say because it lengthens the blue sky opportunity versus time, or in effect, sentiment on likelihood.
who knows which is more correct, it is a matter of instinct and opinion.
personally, I would chase up those high grade reefs asap, (if connected to surface and delineated sufficiently to test) because, early indications of bulk economics are poor. of course that is just an opinion.
success there, would generate more sentiment towards financing onerous bulk testing (a lot of drilling, a Lot of real estate - a lot of chance to lose momentum)
but no one should really give a darn what I think. won't stop me from putting my opinion forward, and also challenging anything which I think reasonably conflicts with my thought processes. don't we all do that ?
cut all all the entendre, and we start to hone in on things that matter. I see more value in that for similar reasons to the above..
let me also say, that I would back any concept I can believe in, as far as I can allow myself to, based on reason and fact.
If I change my sentiment towards anything, it is based on that, not emotion (at least I strive to do that)
respect rather than suspicion, i spose i'm saying..
and that is best measurable in performance and integrity and unbiased facts as they come to hand.