Hello trademig2,
Very well thought out and logical conclusion of the status quo, We have in the past, discussed and theorised much about the nature of the mineralisation at Mt. Alexander and the other tenements held by SGQ. I don't propose to be repetitious here but I shall also ask some questions.
Most of the drilling activities that have taken place over the various campaigns have, as far as I can recall have been planned and executed predominantly on the findings of the geophysical surveys. Quite rightly so because there is little outcrop of rocks post the Tertiary period and concealed mineralisation can quickly be detected through the use of geophysics. The very sophisticated techniques applied to the terrain at Mount Alexander have revealed mostly shallow seated anomalies; which when tested by drilling have yielded spectacular intersections of very high grades of metalurgically favorably treatable sulphides -nickel/copper- and equally very good results of associated mineralisation, accessories if you like, of cobalt, and PGE's and may be precious metals. This from approximately +80% of the anomalies.
Now, I am not a geophysicist and perhaps Geofizz2 can answer this. Is it possible that the shallow anomalies detected and proven to date by shallow drilling at Stricklands are masking the presence of any significantly deeper seated sulphides than the sulphides at Stricklands? in which case DHEM surveys failed to light up potentially deeper seated mineralisation.
The three prospects comprising at Mount Alexander project lie along the ENE trending Cathedrals belt -viz a viz- from west to east – Stricklands –Investigators - Cathedrals. All show strong geophysical thumb print signatures and as I mentioned above, all are significantly mineralised.
The mineralisation discovered to date appears to be flat lying to lightly plunging westwards and discontinuous between the three prospects, although there is insufficient information by way of drilling to be confident that; that this is the case. We also know from core evidence that there was significant structural and lithological upheaval to suggest that post mineralisation there was much restructuring of the mineralisation since genesis, by way of granitic invasions which would have caused digestion and possibly brecciation of the mineralisation and hosting lithologies.
We also note that there is vertical displacement in the mineralisation at least between Stricklands and Investigators, and again between Investigators and Cathedrals – is this a function of faulting during and post upheaval? thus, leaving what appears to be rafts of mineralisation from a major flat lying deposit in the keel of an ultramafic body? Which leads us to wonder, is there a stack of such mineralised rich ultramafics, underlying this discovered shallow mineralisation; that are yet to be detected by exploration techniques? If there aren’t anymore bodies at depth, we still have a + 4 km of the Cathedrals structure to explore. I said it before. There is a possibility that SGQ are only focusing on proving a shallow resource to start with and progress from there. As it stands, we are not there yet!
With regard to the share price, I think all this highlights the fact that there are too many possibilities which could change the status quo as it appears, at short notice. This will make a significant change to the share price almost instantly, provided there is diligent and continuous activity in exploration.
I believe; that has been well demonstrated by the staff and contractors at SGQ. But, I also am not naïve to believe that all is transparent. Maybe because of corporate policy we as shareholders certainly would not be informed of business deals that are in progress until the dealing parties consummate the deal and agree to inform the respective shareholders. So, we can only speculate on the positive regarding WSA's recent actions.
So, I wish you trademig2 and all fellow posters and readers well as events with SGQ unfold
Cheers,
helmenesh
Expand
(20min delay)