Ann: Exploration Update - Mt Alexander, page-22

@tbirdsrgo and @coto thanks for the acknowledgement.

Everything this company does reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote ...

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

It was always obvious that the MT/AMT survey showed no conductive material where they were drilling the seismic targets, yet the company chose to ignore what their own survey had already shown, preferring the 'positive' vibes from the unproven in this area approach of seismics.

One aspect that drilling S1 and S2 is tending to prove up is that the ultramafic zone has pinched out as they go deeper, meaning it likely came from above current ground level and not below it. (current ground level was deep underground many hundreds of millions/billions of years ago).

Moving on to other unexplored areas in the cathedrals belt is acknowledgement of failure IMHO. It also begs the question of ... If these new areas are compelling targets (mind you, no evidence of why they should be looking into these large new targets as in EM conductivity!!), then why wasn't the area searched in the last 6 years of ownership??
It smacks of .... 'we have this area close to where we have found some minor worthless mineralisation, so will look there as we have run out of other ideas'... Brings me back to the Upton Sinclair quote...

Of particular interest is how they still have not released the resource statement for Stricklands, despite the metallurgicals from Canada being received. It should be obvious to all by now that it is so tiny they fear releasing it would drag the SP down further, which IMHO it would. Even the resource drilling at Cathedrals wont add much, especially if you look carefully on the cross section on pg 4. Cathedrals is small compared to Stricklands (again neither is accurately drawn to scale!! always depicting much more mineralisation than actually exists!!).
Adding another tiny resource to a tiny resource will not make the project viable IMHO.

Remember they continue to include the following in the fine print on pg 13....
"The completed drilling at the Project is not sufficient to establish the
degree of geological and grade continuity to support the definition of
Mineral Resource and Reserves and the classifications applied under
the 2012 JORC code."

When the new targets come to surface in the next few days (as per today's announcement) please go and check the size of the EM targets they plan to drill, I sure will!! If they are some of the tiny targets they have tried to drill previously, then it is just more of the same. There is no point in drilling tiny targets that are over 100 metres or so away from existing mineralisation, as it would require another pit to be dug from surface to extract any mineralisation there. The strip ratio would be horrendous if it was 100m+ deep, so no point in wasting shareholders cash in drilling tiny targets!! If they do insist on drilling tiny targets, just for the photo op of some massive sulphides, I expect a lot more holders will wake up to how poorly this mob are performing.

IMHO the existing cash would be far better spent on decent geophysics at the Paterson temements. They have pretty much proved that this area doesn't contain viable mineralisation with over 400 holes drilled and failure to find anything economic...