@McQuade .... "
I bought into this stock on some ripping high grade nickel intercepts that I hoped could explode into something huge."
So did I, exactly the same reason for buying. I made good cash on one of the early 'launches' of some great results, only because I had a minimal profit level on the trade. I was up over $70k, and ended up with only $15k-20k in profit as price quickly retraced, like it did on nearly all those nickel hits over the years. I went in a second time a year or 2 later, same again except the fall back was quicker and ended up breaking even..
That's when I did a huge amount of research to work out what I was missing, it took days, dawn to midnight, and found that the company had been guilding the lily with announcements, there were only a few small spread out high grade pods of mineralisation, with large distances of nothing inbetween.
Now how many times have these new marketers of the stock repeated the same rubbish, like bangbang just did, even though that's been proven to be totally inaccurate by the company's own announcement's cross section!!?
If you don't understand that the high grade weathered component is not going to be deep here, then you shouldn't be investing in junior exploration companies.
@McQuade .... "
Your aggressive posts on the dam were proven to be wrong and the company response pretty well shot them all down."
This is totally false and you know it. SGQ didn't bother mentioning that there was a large old tailings dam at all. They also showed that mineralisation was 'open' to the East under that old dam, in that initial presentation.
The correction came out and stated they were doing geotechnical work because of the Dam. They also stated very clearly they are not including any resource from that Eastern tenement..
If the Dam was not an issue, then they could and should have been up front from the beginning. The information about all the work done by Itafos is in the public record for anyone to look up.
Do you really think it would have been fair if it wasn't discussed on HC at all, yet everyone that did a little research of their own found out and quickly sold??
That's ridiculous, of course it should have been discussed here, but every promoter of the project on these threads tried to pretend it didn't exist. Also I never once claimed the B4 Tailings Dam was "active", I did use the term Old Tailings Dam often. Therefore they didn't shoot any of my claims down at all.
Spending money on geotechnicals and not including any MRE from that tenement, are not nothing. They have an effect on the overall project, and it should have been the company that was upfront about it!!
This is a discussion site about stocks, which many promoters of every stock seem to forget. It's not about asking the CEO about stuff. It's about discussion of what's possible given all the known information.
If you and others actually looked at the PEA on this project in detail, and the info the company has already come out with, it's pretty obvious this is a REE project at best, as what's likely been reduced from the existence of that old tailings dam in any JORC MRE, would probably be the high grade Niobium, while the REEs and phosphate have there highest grades and largest quantities further away from the tailings dam, so much less of an issue.
Realistically, "Niobium" is the latest buzz word to gain attention, which is why they are using it, instead of calling it a high grade REE project, that the PEA stated as providing 88% of the revenue. I don't have any respect for those that can't be honest with their shareholders and call a project what it really is, and constantly decide to try and hide public information from shareholders, plus always offer false hopes on future drilling "potential".
There was never any potential for mining to the East under the old tailings dam as part of an open cut, and you know this, yet there it is, the the initial presentation as if it was a possibility. Even to the North, I count 19 holes of low grade mineralisation (the yellow dots) going Northwards away from the main small Niobium area. To call that 'open' will make every geologist that has half a brain laugh. It will be a waste of shareholders cash drilling up there for Niobium, and again if you don't understand that you shouldn't be investing in junior explorers.
I'll keep posting unless you and other long term shareholders start discussing the whole project, good and bad, as if you had to vote on it, which you do (eventually)!! If you discussed it properly, I couldn't and wouldn't be bothered, I'd have nothing to add. So discuss it properly, give me nothing to comment about, please!!
(20min delay)