Good afternoon @mulac1 and thank you for again providing a correct, factual, and concise post. I would however like to add the following.
The results are very encouraging and the company is doing excellent work through their professional approach in chasing these EM anomalies methodically picking up the spoor slowly in elephant country. I am a little disappointed though that prioritisation and progress are a bit too slow in view of the exploration build-up, particularly in WA and the Yilgarn in general. It can be argued that it is due to contractor demand because of the buildup and the restrictions caused by Covid. The company more or less has indicated that Covid has not really affected the progress of the plan, it leaves me to wonder therefore whether we have taken the foot off the pedal and ask why the drilling and geophysical fieldwork has had a number of stops and starts. It has been argued that drilling has to stop whilst geophysical surveys are being conducted, I would have thought that there is sufficient distancing between prospects along the 16 km strike length of Mt. Alexander with sufficient spacing to negate results' interference whilst drilling. The latest report also alludes to a drilling rig arriving on Friday, whereas last week’s report stated that the rigs were drilling 24/7, perhaps I misunderstood and the implication is that it is remobilising from elsewhere on the EL to drill new holes into the anomalies that registered 49000 and 16000 Siemens respectively, peripheral to MAD 184. I also presume they will be wedged off MAD184 and not starting 2 new holes.
I mentioned above being disappointed about prioritisation for the following reason. We have known much about the IDA fault and its role as a conduit for accessing ultramafic lithologies with the associated numerous nickel prospects and mines that formed along its trajectory; Its importance with respect to the West End prospect has also been well documented and it appears that @sandy is about to be vindicated in his posts that promoted its importance and, I am sure the team at SGQ feel the same way. I, therefore, ask the question of why we had to wait so long before poking a hole into it? Some might say I am talking with hindsight vision, not really because there is much regional evidence to verify the above statements. It seems therefore that this could have been the opportunity to bring the options into the money had we diverted our attention to West End earlier, and in conjunction with what we imminently anticipate from the JORC, we would have sufficient funds to contract 5 or 6 drilling rigs to embark on some serious drilling and prove this sucker once and for all.
We read a lot in the reports about the high rate and success in sulphide intersections with targeted EM anomalism, the potential of this anomalism, and therefore the confidence in planning holes; yet we haven’t seen forward plans or programmes in any of the released reports as to which prospects will be prioritised and for what reason. SGQ is sufficiently advanced after 6 or 7 years of serious exploration to report and rely on just promising results to promote the real potential of the company. There are too many predators out there who would take advantage of our easy pace and try to take us over. We have an exemplary team of good people running SGQ and as an investor of some six-plus years, I would not entertain being taken over by anyone. We have to get more aggressive in our approach and plan a strategic exploration attack for the next 18 months that will keep us safe from predetors. I’m sure John Prineas and his management team can do this. So, let's go!
Cheers,
Helmenesh.
(20min delay)