doogs88, your post prompted me to decide to post what I refrained from posting yesterday in a reply to Trapper's post I think we are in agreement.
Trapper, Ozblue, McQuade, OT1961, and mulac1, you gentlemen said it very correctly. John Prineas really disappointed this time, not because of the content of the results, he can't help what nature provides, the disappointment comes from the fact that he had to know this development must have been shaping up over the last 6 months and somehow many important details of progress, and why certain changes from the original programmes were omitted or passed over and not reported. particularly with regard to changes in drilling programmes and curtailment thereof since June when we started this latest journey. When you have a drilling contractor on-site, in the current booming drilling environment, you don't let them go. I was intrigued as to how they were going to calculate the shallow Stricklands mineralisation resource with less than 30 holes, especially as the mineralisation is in pods. The RC rig that was on-site in the middle of the year, should have continues drilling out Stricklands then gone onto Fairbridge (even if they were to be a couple of shallow holes to test the nature of the sulphides under the gossans), then proceed to block out the mineralisation at Investigators and Cathedrals, as was the laid out programme which commenced in early June, Why didn't we stick to that programme even though there were breakdowns with rigs?
Yes, hindsight has 20/20 vision but in this instance, we made a good start in June and then we seem to have deviated from the plan. What happened to precipitate the lifting the foot off the pedal?
Cheers to all, Helmenesh.
SGQ Price at posting:
9.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
