@mulac1 .... While the announcement of Dec 1 does indeed mention different structures, it doesn't mention structures in terms of the seismic target. Every comment about the seismic target is in terms of massive sulphides.
Here they are....
"The geophysical signature recorded in the seismic survey for the new large target is the
same as recorded for the massive nickel-copper sulphides intersected at shallow depths"
"Accordingly, we are very excited with the new, large target identified by the seismic data. The new target is located down-dip from the shallow massive sulphides drilled at Investigators, and has seismic properties consistent with those shallow massive sulphides."
"The target has the same reflective properties as the known shallow massive sulphides."
"Encouragingly, the reflective properties at the new target are consistent with the reflective properties of the known massive sulphides identified from existing drill core."
Every single time the wording of 'the target' is in terms of massive sulphides. Please go and have a careful read of that announcement again. It mentions the structures but not in terms of the specific target.
Then on 11/1/22 they cover themselves by stating... "The first target to be drilled is S1. This large seismic target is modelled with a dip-extent of 450m and located down-dip from and within the same Cathedrals Belt structure that hosts extensive massive nickel-copper sulphides drilled at Investigators."
IMHO the Cathedral structure also hosts a lot of mafic/ultramafic rock that is barren, and given that they have drilled over 400 holes now into this 'structure', mostly EM conductors, but are yet to find a large accumulation of massive sulphides, the odds of drilling into this part of the structure without knowing the conductivity (except for the MT/AMT survey which showed no conductivity in this area), means it is an extremely low probability of hitting massive sulphides.
The 1/12/21 announcement as @Deadfred has indicated, makes it sound like they can only find massive sulphides and nothing else. That is the type of announcement that St George releases way too often, is very misleading, and the reason why I don't like the management here. They are the worst I've come across for misleading announcements, like the cross sections from a couple of years ago showing nickel of greater than 1% over lengths of more than 100 metres that simply didn't exist!! (if it had existed you'd be mining by now!!)
The 11/1/22 announcement covers a miss by indicating it's the structure that hosts the massive sulphides. You cannot have high confidence in 2D seismics for creating drill targets at depth, which is why others companies don't use 2D!!
Just a simple logic question for everyone holding. What are the odds of the very first seismic line just happening to go over the top of a large accumulation of massive sulphides, when they have been searching for years with a host of different geophysics, hundreds of holes, yet found nothing of significance (as in mineable)??
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- SGQ
- Ann: Diamond Drilling Resumes at Mt Alexander
Ann: Diamond Drilling Resumes at Mt Alexander, page-119
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 20 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add SGQ (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
2.5¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $27.21M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
Featured News
SGQ (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable
The Watchlist
ACW
ACTINOGEN MEDICAL LIMITED
Will Souter, CFO
Will Souter
CFO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online