Paavfc, I join Heave Ho, in wishing you success with your long-time investment and that SGQ hit some thick intersections, or prove in situ large pods which will turn this teaser around. I will respectfully have to differ with you re SIR’s capital structure when their discovery. I think you will find that by the time they hit the lucky intersection, (Mark Bennett’s words, not mine) which became NOVA, the company had no more funds to drill another hole and they had more issued shares on the Market than what SGQ had with their initial discovery at the Cathedrals Corridor. Ultimately more shares were issued and their options were converted so that by the time IGO made an offer to take them over, from memory they had in excess of 500 million shares on issue. We have an albeit non quantified ore resource, and only a few days ago we passed the 400 million shares on the market with a better nickel price today than what it was during the Nova discovery.
I would like to think that SGQ’s poor reflection of its true value presently is due to a combination of factors that effect the market in general adversely. But, most noticeably politico economic uncertainties followed by a paucity of understanding of SGQ’s success to date are two major factors.
You brought up Sirius as a comparison quite rightly so and really the capitalisation of the companies at their early stages of development is similar in may respects and; what variations there might be; are really immaterial. However, if one compared the Nova Bollinger ore bodies to the resources that are shaping up at The Cathedrals Corridor, there are striking similarities.
To me they both represent intrusive styles of mineralisation hosted and cushioned in relatively similar shallow dipping/plunging mafic and ultramafic suite of rocks. The mineral distribution shows the classic mode of occurrence incorporating fine disseminated sulphides, followed by +/- blebby and or stringer sulphides, sulphides in breccia and still further down or lower towards the base of the ultramafic bodies, the presence of massive sulphides including pyrrhotite/pyrite, copper and pentlandite. And, whilst both have accessories of cobalt and precious metals, from memory I think the Nova/Bollinger have a propensity towards gold mineralisation, whereas Cathedrals appears to be PGE endowed.
SGQ so far have had success in that they intercepted one if not all of these forms of the sulphide mineralisation as was predicted by the signatures from the various geophysical surveys from day one so to speak.
The shallow intercepts of mineralisation at Nova consisted of thicknesses between 3 and 17m not unlike the results in the shallow drilling of the Cathedrals Corridor. The thickness of the mineralisation at Nova increased 3 or 4 times in the deeper intersections of the intrusives where they flattened out towards and in their keels. Here, slower cooling and gravity would have accommodated the accumulation of more ultramafic material and metal from the intrusive, hence the massive sulphides that we see in these sorts of ore genesis. These thicker intercepts at Nova were found at depths in excess of 350m.
At Cathedrals, we are yet to probe these depths. But we are told that the latest DHEM results that there is an increasing abundance of EM conductors around these depths which are interpreted to represent massive sulphide accumulations. Let us hope that they are thick, long and of high grade. I am not suggesting that the Cathedrals is a look alike of Nova/Bollinger. I do not have enough data to suggest that. But again, seeing you brought Sirius up Paavfc, I thought I’d visit Nova / Bollinger and see what the similarities are. For a crude comparison I am attaching the latest orthographic section put out in the latest SGQ releases and at the risk of being blown out of the water, I am also attaching a section from the July 2012 NEWEXCO release titled Nova massive Nickel Sulphide Deposit.
Helmenesh
