@Dazedandconfused ...."
I do think you are jumping to premature conclusions regards the resource estimates. SGQ has done 3000m's of infill drilling... I prefer to wait for those results to be announced as a JORC number along with the assessment of the scoping study. "
You are correct in that I'm jumping to conclusions based on not full information. That is what all investing is about, a persons own conclusions about the future prospects before the market has adjusted to the new conditions.
If a 50 metre hit of 5% Ni was announced tomorrow, it will be too late tomorrow to jump aboard at cheap prices. Likewise if an announcement came out saying the SS showed mining the small pods was not economic the price would dive before we could do anything about it.
We all invest in a company because we think the probability from known information is a positive bet. Those selling have based their opinion on the opposite, that there are better prospects for their money else
where.
I have never read a report, presentation, quarterly etc from a junior explorer that wasn't hugely bullish on the prospects for the project, including lots of companies that had taken a project from an idea, to a resource, to a development, to a functioning mine, to bust. Altura is the most recent one in a long line of failures at all stages of the journey. The one thing they all had in common was that management remained bullish at every step of the journey.
----
The first announcement from my prior post was from 15/12/17 from ASX historical announcements. It seems none of the links from there now work, but all the info is available from their web pages, so I'll try to always include the date for people to check for themselves, thanks for the feedback on that.
Compared to the way other companies go about discovery to drill-out to resource, St George has been very different, very slow, so I did a lot of that investigative work on the exact holes yesterday to decide for myself, why.
There is a range of different things that don't add up to a great project (the shallow finds), unless they find the elephant, which might not exist, or may not be found.
The following don't add up to me in terms of a management excited about the shallow mineralization, actions speak louder than words ....
1. Lack of conviction by BOD/management in terms of putting their own money into the company in the last 4 years, especially compared to remuneration withdrawn. Lack of on market purchases when the SP was low.
2. Pedestrian pace to drill out a JORC compliant MRE, no conviction with speed in getting the job done. 5 years since acquisition and great drill intersections ever since. First use of the word 'discovery' in heading of announcement 1/8/16. Why no rush like CHN, discovery to JORC MRE in 16 months?
3. Information that is all over the place, lots of announcements showing great photos with high hopes for the sulphides encountered, or the new conductor etc, but the real results I had to go hunting to find. Poor results hidden away months later. Why is the information scattered all over the place and not clearly presented in an announcement for each of the separate places where mineralization exists?
4. Lack of clear cross sections showing holes drilled and where the mineralization is. Announcements were clear during 2016. For example look at the announcement 12/10/16 on pg 3, showing drill holes with intercepts of massive, stringer and disseminated sulphides. Compare this to 2020 announcements where there is lots of the stuff shown on pg 2 of the 27/8/20 announcement, which is not useful for in depth analysis. I picked that announcement because there is a better cross section on pg 5, but still nothing like the detail they gave in 2016. Why?
BTW that cross section from pg 5 has nickel copper sulphides down at the bottom of hole MAD181, inferring the shallow mineralization continues to depth, the actual assays were hidden away months later in the quarterly released 29/1/21 on pg 6. There is no significant intersection from that hole. However back in August they stated on pg3 ...
"
The next two holes – MAD181 at Investigators and MAD183 at Fairbridge – have provided another huge leap forward with thick intersections of mineralised mafic-ultramafic units."
There has been no correction to that incorrect cross section from the August announcement.
Please people go and look that one up for yourselves. Are there others are like it?
Added up everything indicates to me that BOD/management are not overly enthused about this shallow mineralization, and that the still elusive elephant, which may not exist, is the only real prize.
The reason to do the work for relevant studies, ie feasibility or scoping, is to find out if the deposit is economic. There is a very real chance that the shallow deposits are not economic. Why do you think the initial Stricklands SS was expanded to include the other shallow deposits??
While JP might be talking positive about the prospect for the SS, he is just as much in the dark as the rest of us until the required experts have run the numbers for resource size, mining cost, dilution, recovery, processing costs, transport costs, etc, etc in the SS. Every part adds up to show if something is economic or not.
While nickel is currently going up in price, making the project look more economic now, a conservative price must be used in the studies, because in the couple of years it would take to get permits, raise funds, etc, the price will change. The history of nickel is one of booms and long busts, I don't expect this time to be different.
(20min delay)