I've been very critical of StG for basically doing the same thing over and over, without success but expecting different results.
Doing the Seismic to look for targets is something different, so that gets a tick from me. However why 2D seismic when it has been 3D seismic that has been used for successful nickel exploration results around existing nickel mines?
3D is the go for nickel exploration, not 2D, as you are likely to get reflected targets in 2D, as per this research paper...
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._2D_vs_3D_seismic_mineral_exploration_surveysThis bit from pg 3 in particular...
"
Instead of drilling immediately on the anomaly, a proper 3D seismic survey was designed and plannedto spatially locate and delineate it for drilling. The 3D seismic survey properly positioned the bright spot in 3D space. It was located at about 500-700 m off the 2D profile and at shallower depths (Figure 2b)."
Perhaps I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but isn't it convenient that when another round of drilling has come up short and the company has been getting low on funds again, another U-beaut large target has emerged to be drilled just when they need to raise capital again, as in early next year.
A serious belief in seismic surveys would have the company do the necessary 3D to accurately target possible massive sulphides at depth. Anomalies on 2D like the paper above stick out like a sore thumb, but can also be magnetite or just massive pyrites. The ones circled by SGQ don't seem to be as bright as those of the successful nickel miners.
The DD hole that is going to be very expensive and over 1000m in total depth seems a bit like a 'hail Mary' attempt at location of mineralisation without doing the required 3D to properly identify a target. However I'm sure they will have completed the next cap raise before before the hole reaches depth.
Good luck to holders..
(20min delay)