@SandyC .. You have been extremely bullish about SGQ over many years including the last year while I've been negative stating the SP will probably go lower for the last year based on them having nothing.
Which one of us has been interpreting the situation correctly over the last year?? Let's guess you don't answer this question..
The seismic survey doesn't show any EM anomaly. It shows a
slightly higher reflectance than the background, though it is hard to tell with the colour addition the company has added over the top. Likewise for the area around Investigators. Those companies with proven results from 3D seismics have outstanding targets that are magnitudes brighter than background readings, they don't have this here.
Should just the words about a stand out target be taken as real, despite all the other stuff they have stated in the past that proved to be incorrect??
If something is true, it's not slanderous at all. Is it true that the company included cross sections in announcements that showed 100m+ thickness of 1%+ mineralisation that doesn't exist?? It sure is..
Is it true that management stated they were doing a MRE for Stricklands, but never bothered to release it?? Sure did..
How about results from the resource drillouts?? still missing..
Is it true that management (and BOD) invested in another company this year that they are on the BOD of and didn't invest any cash here?? Sure is!!
How much has JP invested here over the last 5 years compared to remuneration taken out of the company?? You work out the numbers!! I bet you decide not to do this with some fudge of not being relevant or similar rubbish.. It's very relevant towards their
continuing commitment.
Your obviously bitter towards me because I've been correct in this going down, while you've been wrong about it going up, so are losing money. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result. Investing cash here and continually losing it over the last 5 years has been what's happening, yet you seem to think something different will happen. I'm sure you will come up with another great excuse next year after the deep drilling fails.
The odds of a large accumulation anywhere along the 'plane' that the ultramafics follow 40* to the North West is becoming smaller and smaller as it looks very consistent along strike and down dip with a lot of scattered pods and veins from 30m deep to over 400m deep that they have tested. The large target at 800m
is not an EM target at all. It is a line on a 2D seismic that could be anything, including nothing but a reflection from elsewhere. Remember every time they have tested away from an EM conductor, like MAD203 they find nothing worthwhile, every time!!
Serious companies do 3D seismics properly before drilling. The odds of success are very, very minor on that deep hole, so it's a hail Mary IMHO.
I'm also going to claim they do next years cap raise before the hole gets to depth as well, not after. Time will tell to see who's accurate on that, as you claim 'after'. Let's re-visit this next year to see who was accurate.
The fact you guys can't see the different between a large 600m X 400m EM conductor with a 9,000 Seimens reading that also had high magnetics and gravity readings, and drilling for small 13m X 10m targets says a lot by itself. I get lots wrong in my investment choices as does everyone, but try to keep losses small by exiting as soon as the potential dissipates. Time has proven it's a fool's errand sticking around junior explorers that don't have success.
Five and a half years without success here, drilling the same area with hundreds of holes while not finding anything worthwhile says it all.
The fact you consider a rough 450m target without any EM readings at 800m deep (I know impossible at that depth), as equivalent to a large 600m X 400m EM target with high Seimens readings says a lot about you, not me. It is not inconsistent stating one is a good target and the other poor. You don't seem to understand risk/reward.
SGQ have simply failed to find a large decent EM target to drill test. It is probably because none exist in this area, which becomes more likely the greater area they test, simply because there is less unexplored ground left and they searched the best spots first!! It's a simple calculation, but something that seems to escape the thought process of many invested here because they want the dream, despite it becoming less likely, while dilution inexorably increases with every cap raise.
