@AceRimmer ... I used to hold a large position in SGQ going back a few years. I couldn't work out why the SP was having large pullbacks just about every time there was a reasonably decent announcement.
I went and spent 4-5 days going back through announcements over the prior 4-5 years, putting together everything they had found and announced. By 4-5 days, I mean from dawn to midnight all these days in a row...
This was a Nickel project, with some fantastic drill intercepts. The problem was the company had 3 separate areas along strike from each other by a couple of km and they kept jumping from one area to another's drilling.
Going back through the announcements, they had a few 'accidents' in reporting, like intersections from previous drilling, in cross sections showing over 100m of Ni greater than 1%, in thickness, where no such intersection existed.
They also drilled some various small pods, from different angles, in different drilling programs, often spread a year or more apart, without mentioning it was the same pod previously discovered (I had to do the trigonometry on the drill angles and starting location Eastings and Northings to find this for myself).
There were often multiple drill holes into the one pod of 17m X 10-14m in size. A small concentrated area of nickel mineralisation that didn't extend anywhere.
St George made grand announcements about resource drill outs at the various deposits, then never released the results, they did likewise on a scoping study on the project, including some mets on the great Ni find (again from the main pods), but never released it's total findings, but the mets results were good for a boost in SP.
It reminded me so much of what the shonks at CDU did in drilling the small fantastic area multiple times from different angles and reporting them as 'new' discoveries. On these HC threads we had some people perpetually bullish on CDU, who all disappeared the day the company was handed to administration as they went bust. It's a very good bet that it was management and inside shills with those accounts.
On the SGQ threads there are some long term posters that have always been bullish no matter how poorly the company has performed, plus recently a few new posters always bullish, never looking critically at anything.
I've made it my business to keep an eye on SGQ and post there when something new pops up. Between the 1st and 30th of July I didn't post there at all, I did post on the 31st of July after they released their quarterly after market, about the admin, staff and corporate costs that were over 3 times more than our neighbour ENR, yet managed to spend around half what ENR spent of exploration and evaluation for the entire year.
Both are just junior explorers and IMHO the true explorers are those like ENR that spend their funds on exploration, not on management, corporate and admin..
Last year when I was doing some DD on WA1 I came across the Itafos PEA, as I was looking for other projects in Niobium that could be competition for WA1's new find. It didn't stack up economically, and neither did the others, which is why I bought in here and kept buying.
We have a project that the others I've researched don't come close to. The Itafos PEA told me last year that it was not economic, based on the huge capital spend to get all the minerals, it also uses prices like $US50k/t as the return for Nb2O5, not the $US30k that Paul uses. At $30k/t the Itafos project is uneconomic and I'll bet the $US600m capital spend for a 120kt/a plant, then 240kt/a, has gone up. (they needed multiple processes to gain all minerals to be economic using 'high' numbers for returns). The PEA is not a feasibility study and Itafos never bothered to do a feasibility study in the 11 years since the PEA.. I take it those running Itafos are not stupid either and decided to sell the project instead of spending a lot more on it.
When SGQ made their huge new project announcement I remembered the Itafos PEA and went back to read it. Only then did the tailings dam stick out like a sore thumb, and mentioned in the PEA. SGQ never mentioned the PEA done by Itafos nor the old B4 tailings dam of CBMM sitting directly above and upstream from the resource (not JORC compliant, but is to the Canadian standard NI 43 101).
Apparently the existing information on the web is not liked by the promoters of this new project, they are angry about how it's come to light, so have tried to discredit everything I do and say, yet always with disparaging comments, never any evidence that the reports are wrong or fake. (Pretty hard to make out a PEA sitting on Itafos's web pages doesn't exist!!)
The company insiders, and posters on HC don't seem to understand that the big money, like investment funds, would already be aware of these negative reports and decided to dump the stock on Tuesday and Wednesday, of course blaming me for the route by giving misinformation. (I didn't know I had the power to influence 180M shares being traded over 2 days; because I don't)
So apologies to all here that a few angry people that have most likely lost money on a dog stock, have followed me over to here and dumped on WA1, always without evidence, just words of angry people.
BTW I don't care for bullies on forums, or in life, and I certainly will not stop posting what I find as relevant information, nor do I back away from bullies in life. So unfortunately we may get more absurd posting here.
No-one ever thanks you for warning them about the stocks they hold being poor investments, when they go bust, they do if they get out before they go bust, but not after if still holding. You, the messenger as as bad as management, has been my experience.
I've had this over the years on various stocks I've warned people about like CFU (Ceramic fuel cells), CDU, PO3, AJM, SBB, AVZ and others now bust and/or delisted.
People don't think in systems. Every project is a system of lots of moving parts, from a 'find' to a final market. All the factors have to add up to be a good investment, and you have to work out it's good before the rest of the market, or the opportunity is gone. It has to add up in totality or highly likely to be a failure. Those companies above all had one thing in common, something that sounded great, but a lot of missing parts of the overall picture, with management constantly looking at just the positives and never the big picture of what would bite them..
A few fantastic grades are by themselves meaningless, hence the rise and fall in our neighbour. You need scale and grade to overcome all the future obstacles. I only entered WA1 when the scale was obvious, not just a few good grades. The grades got better here and so did the scale, win/win, IMHO. Remoteness is irrelevant if you have size and grade, Telfer is the classic example of this, in the middle of nowhere like Luni.
Luni is too big for CBMM to ignore, perhaps welcome, for the expansion of Niobium use from multiple sources, if they can get along with us, to benefit all producers. They certainly would not want to go into competition with us, as that would crucify profits for decades. The people who run this company and CBMM are not stupid, they all realise this...
Sorry for the long post, I thought it worth giving the full story on why we have some new negative posters that might persist.
(20min delay)