I think longer term holders will be more accustomed to variable results, extended periods of little news flow, change in plans, the general exploration story. So, yes, most of the longer term holders will still support the story - it hasn't actually changed.
The ore system has been intersected repeatedly, and it is feasible to feel that at least some of the future results will have more significant scale to the widths that have been intersected so far.
There's no great issue with the geology/mineralisation so far - all of the ingredients are there with the exception of sustainable widths (so far), and this could change with further drilling.
The real potential issues are psychological:
- Investors losing faith due to short trading time spans
- Investors losing faith due to impatience
- Investors losing faith due to other opportunities that have arisen for them in the meantime
- Investors not understanding the meaningfulness in the results (whatever that may be)
- The SGQ team losing faith and becoming more conservative as a result of the market expectations/movements on the back of the results
- The SGQ team changing priorities to suit perceived market/investor preferences
What I'd like to know is:
- What are the pierce points on the EM conductors - are they in the middle of the modelled conductor, at the top, near the bottom
- How long will it take to complete the downhole EM? Is it being done immediately post-hole completion? Do we have modelled downhole EM conductors from MAD15-19 already, for example?
- Maybe a little more detail on the intended news flow or opportunities for news in terms of actual lab assays, down-hole EM, commencement of drilling on the remodelled conductors
- Why the drilling gap before going to Investigators - is it just an access/work program authorisation issue?
- Some commentary on what the actual conceived target is now at Cathedrals based on the results so far, or are we just drilling conductors without a target model?
- Do we have an actual date for drilling to commence at Ascalon?
- Why not drill at least one hole 25-50m out from (down plunge) from the high grade intercept in MAD-15 to test for local variability in width, especially since it's so shallow
- The real success of the drilling will come when we actually test along strike/down dip of existing hits that aren't necessarily related to a conductor - if we are getting good massive sulphides away from the modelled conductors we have to rethink our approach and consider the whole project to be a lot more prospective than previously thought
Overall, the results today are disappointing from an investment perspective. However, the potential is still there and I hope the company maintains complete momentum, be it here or Ascalon. I think any breathers between programs will be punished further, and a commitment to keeping the newsflow active will be rewarded well. It's up to SGQ to choose which path they want to take from here.
Cheers,
GB
(20min delay)