Ann: Diamond Drilling Resumes at Mt Alexander, page-121

Hi ozblue

I am not sure you have a rational argument here.

When SGQ uses the term "Cathedrals belt structure" that's referring to the overall geology of this patch of ground. When SGQ talks about the target in particular they make it plain the "reflective properties are the same as the shallow massive sulphides". There is nothing contradictory about the 2 statements.

What it means, for practical purposes, is this target now has to be drill tested. Which is what is currently underway. It is a good target.... does it contain a commercial grade of ore? That has yet to be decided.

Your rhetorical question... "What are the odds of the very first seismic line just happening to go over the top of a large accumulation of massive sulphides...." Given the fact there is no other anomaly detected by this seismic survey line and the line was sited over the shallow deposits (as can be clearly understood since they also appear in the results) I think the "odds" are as good as they get.

If you are convinced that SGQ has a dud prospect then you need to explain to us how come there is ultra high grade near the surface. If it did not come from the anomaly which SGQ is now drill testing where did it come from? How did it get there? In your opinion.

I can agree with you as far as management's history of overstating things. A quick glance at the headlines of announcements over the last couple of years shows the phrase "massive sulphides" crops up time and time again but have not, thus far, amounted to anything much. Hyping things and then disappointing people is at the heart of the very poor sentiment for the stock today. You have concluded the management is dishonest... that's the way you see things. I think a more generous interpretation is in order. I think the early success (with high grade near surface intercepts) led management to be unduly enthusiastic, which they communicated to the market. I can easily imagine myself making the same mistake.

I also agree with you that this first drill hole might not be targeted accurately. The emphasis is on might not.... I am just a mug punter with no technical background and I have to trust the judgement of the consultants and the SGQ geologists. If they have got it wrong then they will just have to drill another hole.... if they have got it right then this hole will intercept the target and a lot of questions will be answered.

Your reference to the exploration effort so far... " that they have drilled over 400 holes now into this 'structure', mostly EM conductors, but are yet to find a large accumulation of massive sulphides, ..." is misleading on your part. What has been made crystal clear by the seismic survey is the likely source of the near surface is below the level of almost all of that previous drilling. If you do indeed have a conceptual grasp of the ground SGQ is exploring you would accept that as true. Either you don't have that understanding or you are deliberately erroneous.

There are risks involved for anyone holding SGQ at this time. It is proper that people should know those risks. It is, at this stage, an interesting target... no guarantees attached.

Fine by me that you have a different opinion and happy to know what that opinion is... however to come onto this thread, as you do, making repeated accusations that the management is disingenuous and then using those insinuations to justify your particular assessment of the prospects for SGQ is out of line.