Positives on SGQ!, page-14

You obviously have not read the JORC code, here is a link...

https://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf

Funny how both you and the company seem to have resources and reserves confused. An initial Jorc compliant resource can be issued without all the extended metallurgical testwork. You need all the specifics for working out a reserve as part of a feasibility study. St George are not doing a feasibility study, just a scoping study so need a lot less confidence in the metallurgical testwork.

They already did the metallurgy, reporting how much of the PGEs went to either the nickel or copper concentrate, so have all the information they need. Waiting for Canada results is just more stalling IMHO..

Here is the main diagram showing the link between resources and reserves pg 9, notice that resources increase in geologic confidence from inferred to indicated to measured, all without the 'studies' necessary to take them to reserves ....

https://unauthorised investment advice/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Mine-development.jpg

With the extra testing in Canada they are really looking at one of the modifying factors, something needed to go from resources to reserves, but there wont be reserves as they are only doing a scoping study.

They stated in an announcement last year (or was it the year before?) that after the resource drillout they were getting Entec to do the MRE, which was to be completed shortly afterwards, so they knew back then they had enough information to create an MRE.

It's all just more excuses you are falling for, from management, that have no basis in reality or according to the JORC code.

Just while we're on 'the company said', they also said the following in December ..... “S2 – the new, large target identified in the Transits Belt – has the same seismic properties as S1 in the Cathedrals Belt and just like S1 is interpreted to be a target for massive nickel-copper sulphides."

Their own admittance that target S2 is "just like S1 and interpreted to be a target for massive nickel copper sulphides".

BTW the 'lucky' Ozblue guess of a dud hole was based on no conductive material from the MT/AMT survey in the area being drilled, ie the companies own work.

Somehow management forgot to include the findings from that survey when ramping up the current drill program. If they had considered the MT/AMT survey they should have come to the conclusion that highly conductive massive sulphides were unlikely in the area that had low conductivity!!

In terms of continued drilling of S2 etc, they would have a contract with the drillers to drill these holes, so they will go ahead with them, especially as they wouldn't have approval for alternative drill hole sites, so it would probably cost the same whether the holes were drilled or not, due to the contract.