Greetings tiliqua and thank you for your post,No tiliqua, I and...

Greetings tiliqua and thank you for your post,

No tiliqua, I and other members at hot copper with some knowledge of exploration and who post regularly on Hot Copper and are reasonably informed of the exploration programme at Mt. Alexander I think are capable of collating the results published from the Mount Alexander work. I also think we are capable of recognizing that drilling mineralisation 3 to 5 metres apart from previous known intersections and reporting them as new and significant, is a bit unorthodox.

Moving from prospect to prospect and concept to concept, without completely testing the one you were working on, especially when you have command of only one drilling exploration, is not really inspiring exploration practice. Not providing relevant sections and some decent plans to inform shareholders pictorially what is happening is poor reporting. Not to mention failure to report on follow up results if they did not meet with expectations and, why for example, was the Hawaii tenement relinquished without really doing any significant testing? Yes I’m sure they have their reasons, but don’t we as loyal shareholders deserve a paragraph or two of what prompted the relinquishment of this tenement? But I will stand correcting if an explanation was given that I missed.

No tiliqua, I am not suggesting we have been misled, I’m suggesting that their planning is not followed through, I’m suggesting they are trying to do too much and have a shortage of staff and possibly contractors to carry out their ambitious programmes.

These are the reasons why I might sound a bit off colour with SGQ at the moment. But I am still looking forward to results from the deep drilling programme currently at play.

Cheers tiliqua

Helmenesh.