Exploratory drill holes can consitute scientific exploration. The purpose of the science is to lead to a better educated guess as to where to sink holes in a campaign. It's no guarantee of success, as we know from Peru with all of the science done prior to Riqueza.
In this case we already have data including extensive visible mineralisation, good sample grades from exposed mafic/ultramafic formations - it's a system not just some chance surface accumulation like perhaps MDI has at Crosswinds. That's combined with some geophysics already in place. In my, also lay, opinion we could get more detailed and real information from considered exploratory holes at JE than we will from the next rounds of geophysics so taking a couple, or a few, considered shots (which would not be bank busting 1000m holes) would be adding to the knowledge base to frame a longer campaign. It would come with the hypothetical bonus of potential market changing results.
That said, I understand the rationale to try and conserve cash flow and hopefully maximise bang for buck when drill locations are finally selected. It's a conservative and rational approach and the safest one for the board to take. I'm not really critical of it. But it's also interesting isn't it that we're talking about a likely 6 figure sum (say $100k-175k) to generate more geophysics hoping to accurately approximate what's under ground, vs a 6 figure sum (say $200-275k) to obtain real data on what is underground. I would happily argue the latter on the board as a sensible step at JE. The overall cost of ultimately doing both isn't really a material shift in future budget needs.
ICG Price at posting:
5.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)