Ann: Drilling of Strong EM Conductors at Mt Alexander, page-116

Following up from earlier, I've been trying to get a handle on all the drilling over the last 4.5 years, yet keep coming up with EM conductors that look promising yet reveal little.

To put the recent 49,000 siemans reading into context, the following was from an announcement on 3/10/18...

"Surveys in MAD116 and MAD118 result in the re-interpretation of conductor MAD111:X1
as three strong conductive sources with three new targets modelled for drilling:

Conductor MAD116:X1 with conductivity of 208,000 Siemens and located to the
north of MAD116 and MAD118

Conductor MAD116:X2 with conductivity of 188,000 Siemens and located to the
south of MAD116 and MAD118

Conductor MAD116:XXX with conductivity of 250,000 Siemens and located in a
possible shear zone between MAD116 and MAD118

Survey in MAD120b identifies a strong off-hole conductor, named MAD120b:X1, trending
in a westerly down-dip direction with modelled conductivity of 210,000 Siemens"

So what were the results from drilling those conductors??

25/10/18 ...
"MAD126 was completed to a downhole depth of 209.9m to test EM conductor MAD120b:X1, which was
modelled with a conductivity of 210,000 Siemens."

30/11/18 ...
"MAD126 -- 7.86m @ 5.70%Ni, 2.11%Cu and 0.18%Co from 184m" (PGEs came in later at over 3g/t)

A great result, but what about the other great conductors?? These were all at Investigators, however in early 2019 the drilling moved to Cathedrals and Fairbridge...

9/7/19 ..42 EM conductors ready to drill pg 5 from ...
https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02121744

Not one of those conductors match the 3 identified on 3/10/18, all over 200,000 siemans in conductance, why??

In 2019 the focus then moved to Radar and Bullets, with only some of those 42 conductors drilled (and results released), which were a subset of 73 conductors. Among the targets back at Investigators was MAD144 and MAD 157 with siemans conductance of 82,000 and 89,000 respectively. I found this for MAD 157 "MAD157 intersected an 11m thick zone of nickel copper sulphides", with description and some XRF readings, but couldn't find the assays in any announcement, despite being a good intersection.
I finally found the assays for MAD157 on pg 11 of the 31/1/20 quarterly report ....
MAD157 4.95m @ 1.58% Ni, 0.75% Cu, .05% Co, and .25 g/t PGEs. A bit disappointing given the 89,000 siemans conductance.

It appears to me that every geophysical known to man has been used to discover sulphides at Mt Alexander, including going over old ground where prior geophysicals have already found drill targets. There has been MLEM, FLEM, Samson, SAM, gravity, IP, SQUID MLEM, MT/AMT, (I'm sure I've missed some). Each new round of geophysicals finds new targets, yet not all the existing targets have been tested.

My whole point in looking at all these past announcements is in trying to ascertain why our Mcap is so low compared to other explorers that seem to have a lot less mineralisation. Because it has taken hours (days really), to try and nut out where everything is and exactly what we have, could itself be the entire reason.

The other junior explorers have very organised announcements clearly laid out in both plan and cross section of the relevant discovery areas. Future exploration is clearly marked out showing continuation of existing work in a methodical fashion.

St George has made following one discovery from first hole through to a resource, that people can work out on paper (theoretically) for themselves, nearly impossible, by jumping all over the place and never mapping out where holes are in relation to surrounding ones in a clear precise manner.
The plan view looks messy, and there are very few cross sections of areas. In fact looking at the last few presentations, the company does not bother to give a few cross sections showing what we already have. They just mention 'high grade mineralisation'.

IMHO the share price is being held back by lack of useful communication of existing high grade mineralisation as much as anything, plus a failure to follow through on an area of decent intersections and/or nearby conductive targets in a timely manner. Hopefully the upcoming scoping study and resource estimate will remedy some of this.

I am a little concerned about no having any resource estimate before doing the scoping study. If the JORC estimate comes out as inferred the ASX will not allow the scoping study to mention useful numbers in the scoping study because of low confidence levels of inferred resource estimates. I've seen this happen to a number of junior companies, where the actual info released to market in a scoping study is useless because it is cut to ribbons. The resource estimate needs to be in the measured and indicated category for the SS to be useful.
By not releasing the resource estimate well in advance of the scoping study, could also be another reason why the market has kept the Mcap low.

Sorry about the long post, I've been spending a lot of time pouring over all the announcements.