Demonstrates knowledge of geology and past exploration in area...

Demonstrates knowledge of geology and past exploration in area of applicationLet's address the qualitative criteria then, keeping in mind the area has been explored by multiple companies in the past and worked over by old-timers with numerous shafts, small mines and later mechanised surface dry-blower operations. Tiger is a small soils defined gold target, centred on two lines 100m apart, soil anomaly likley stretched SE local drainage direction, in a camp of generally subcrop working/mines etc.


You have your opinion on how it meets the criteria, here's mine:

"Tests innovative, soundly based mineral deposit model or petroleum / energy play"... simply not innovative or new mineralisation model (outside speculation it's like something big in Canada because... granites?)

"Has potential to advance exploration activity in under-explored areas"... not under-explored imo, Tiger hasn;t been drilled though plenty of other prospects have at Mangaroon. Brownfields prospects always have more targets worth a hit but that doesn;t mean deserving of guv funding to do the basic exploration shareholders are hoping to benefit from.

"Delivers basic geoscientific information (i.e. resolves age, stratigraphic relationships, structural settings, untested geochemical or geophysical anomalies, or depth to geophysical targets or basement, new mineral commodity in area of application)"... no, plenty of outcrp for mapping, strat samples, interp other drilling in the area etc... so just because it's an untested geochem anomaly the guv should pay for it?... I think not.

"Program tests area of previous ineffective drilling"... ob's not

"Demonstrates knowledge of geology and past exploration in area of application"... what does that even mean? It's a walk up geochem anomaly in good outcrop, with no rock chip assays worth releasing.

"Has supporting evidence for target generation (including geological plans, cross-sections, etc)".. well just repeating themselves now, a target is a target for a reason derrr.

If it's a 'regions for royalties thing' and Gascoyne seat is in play next election, that I understand. If there were no better targets submitted that were higher risk but would add more to the geological understanding and thus future exploration I'd be shocked. If the Geol Survey was a bit mates clubbish i wouldn;t be shocked...