Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-39

OK.

Disconnecting the project / company from those who pull the strings (at least to start with) ... here goes ...

I would hold both.

Avoiding a War & Peace length reasoning, some brief "whys":

NAG

1./ Interesting results under the western pit
2./ Smallish JORC but seems about right on the results to date ... it was never going to be of scale thrown around on this thread ... but it might be one day
3./ Mining License on a previously run mine / process site which means if they ever put in a work plan to mine, it will likely be approved by the EPA ... this is rare as hens teeth ... no one in Victoria has permitted a process facility in over 20 years except for GCM on NAG ground ... Fosterville and Costerfield cannot even get approval for taillings dam extensions

SXG

1./ Has significant results ... even drilling down dip / plunge takes some skill ... there is something of significance there, these sorts of hits don't just come from nowhere
2./ They don't have a JORC but this is purely because it would be underwhelming and never be anywhere near the grandiose scales that have been built into the share price ... but like with NAG ... it may be grandiose one day

From an exploration / company building angle its a game of chance, you'd want to have both projects to increase your chances of the grandiose. SXG needs NAG for the ML, NAG needs SXG for the $$.

Caveat:

1./ I am a purist when it comes to "mining" stocks ... they should follow a logical sequence from exploration to eventual mining.
2./ The fact that I like both projects but hold neither is then directly linked to who is running them. NAG have proven to be follow no logical sequence; SXG are following a curve that has no time scale on the x-axis so it is akin to gambling.