The backlash in part was from shareholders interpreting the...

First 283 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
phillop

558 Posts.

79

24/03/21

14:54

Post #: 52006727
Share

Originally posted by afawcett: ↑

People were expecting great results from the first hole, it rarely works that way in exploration. Put it this way as many here have experienced it takes years to get to this point and then it’s about looking at the results. Having an open mind is essential at this point as all things need to be considered whether to follow up or move on to the next project. Every new data point is like that as it can prove or disprove a model or change it so it’s something very different.

The geophysics in the area point to something interesting, the area might be a hybrid sedimentary/IOCG setting as is the case in Oak Dam West where it seems to be alteration over printed over sediments. Whether it’s like OD where it’s intruded with sediments in some parts or it’s entirely sediment hosted with IOCG overprint.

Just look at hole 2 for example, it’s mineralisation in a different setting to IOCG which could be followed up later on. But it is probably is linked to an IOCG deposit close by.

Expand

The backlash in part was from shareholders interpreting the announcements from the company that hole 4 had intercepted mineralisation over several hundreds of metres, and that this would potentially be a major discovery. This was based on the two core photo's, the commentary in a presentation, and the director buying a large number of shares. The results reported from the lab showed that this was far from the case.
You could assume that shareholders were intentionally misled, as this information (not the assay results) was used prior to and as part of marketing for a capital raise (I am not saying this was what happened).

CHK Price at posting: 2.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
13 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply