Look, I can see how you come to your conclusions, but just for background, I am actually a mineral exploration and mining geologist who has spent 35 years running exploration programmes in the field and working in mines all over WA (and SE Asia). So I naturally evaluate mineral exploration programmes from the point of view of my own professional experience and on their geological merits. That is where I am coming from, pure and simple. If I have any fault, it is to talk geology here, on a forum where only some of the participants are actually geologists (and there are a few very good ones here, with whom one can productively exchange opinions), and I apologise if that seems rude to others, but it's not meant to be.
LSR genuinely looked absolutely great to me. Why? Because they had a high-grade outcropping reef at surface, and two RC holes into it on the same drill section, so it should have been a no-brainer to be able to hit it again in a deeper hole, to get the share price up in lights and the options exercised at 3c. Also, I had just sat down with two of the directors at the RIU conference, one of whom is a very senior and well-respected mining industry geologist, and they had explained to me exactly what they believed they had and why, over a table covered with rocks and some very impressive chunks of the Big Sky quartz vein, spangled with coarse gold.
So I completely agreed with their geological rationale for the drilling, and we all genuinely and quite reasonably expected it to be a big success. Nobody would have been more shocked and disappointed by the poor results than the LSR directors themselves, particularly the one who backed his words with $300,000 of his own hard earned cash. You are welcome to imagine that I was ramping it, but it is an incorrect assumption. I was completely genuine in my belief in the stock, and the only reason that I sold out before the assays arrived was that Port Philip Publishing had come in and ramped the hell out of it, and pushed it way past my sell target. So no repeat of the earlier good intersections was going to push it much beyond that: a market cap of $20m. Any success was all priced in by the time PPP had finished with it, so having achieved my expected profit without actually taking the risk of waiting for the results, it would have been mad not to sell. Just greedy and stupid, which I am trying to stop being.
As for the original discussion on AUZ, where you and I first crossed paths, the point I was making at that time was completely valid geological reasoning. Geophysical anomalies, in particular IP anomalies, are not geological facts. We have all drilled hundreds of them in my profession, and usually got nothing. That is the usual result of drilling a geophysical anomaly. Zippo. Just ask Ben Bell next time you speak to him. And sometimes you do get lucky with them, but not often, believe me. They are not a certainty.
The expression 'blind' drilling that I used is the industry term to describe the drilling of an area which has no outcrop, because it is covered with soil (or with transported desert sands and clays in this case). When there is no geological outcrop, you cannot make a surface geological map. So then there is no way of knowing which way a single discovery vein intersection like they had at Dixon is dipping or striking. (Do you drill it from the east, or do you drill it from the west? You don't know, you just take a guess and hope it works out).
Which meant that this diamond drill hole wasn't necessarily going to hit it the discovery vein (it did as it happened, but believe me there was a lot more luck in that than you seem to think).
As for my opinion of the prospectivity of Baumgarten greenstone belt, that's just personal experience. I did a lot of drilling there myself - and lots of others have, and all that has come of it in the past were lots of little sniffs, but nothing of any substance. So if this Dixon prospect does turn out to be a mine, it will be a first for the Baumgarten Belt, and quite a surprise to a the industry. (I can see reasons why it might however, and why it might have been missed).
But my overall point about the AUZ drill target PRIOR to the recent lucky/successful drilling was that, because the target was based on a single drill hole, through transported cover, guided by an inferred IP geophysical 'anomaly' (the red blob diagram), the result was not as certain as you were making out. That's all. I wasn't trying to put anybody off, just offering a little geological caution, in the hope of an intelligent reply, rather than a spray of abuse.
Anyway, I actually don't really mind what people say or think here, but having bought into this, I thought might as well do you the courtesy of explaining where I am coming from.
Obviously you and Chris are coming from a completely different background, and have your own point of view, and I am sure that you are both completely sincere in your vehement opinions and unpleasant criticism. And that's fine, just as long as everybody minds their manners, and doesn't go abusing and accusing people that they don't even know because they have decided that they are some sort of imaginary threat to their own opinion or investment.
As for my geological input, if you don't like it for God's sake put me on ignore! That's what it's for. It's a great function. I'll just cease to exist so you won't have to listen to me ever again?
In fact, why not do it now? Onceover: IGNORE.!!! Brilliant.
No hard feelings though.
Time I put myself on ignore and went and did something useful..
(20min delay)