G'day Oz. I personally don't read much into the promo spiels when they come from accountants (or lawyers) - they don't know coprolite from smectite, or the fuzzy area between competent assumption and blind speculation. So often it is more a case of what is not being said. In this case, if the geophysical consultant plainly stated that the primary conductor was missed, 90% of the time you would expect the spin-doctor to plainly state that to the market.
IMO, the words in yesterdays news do not contradict a story about an off-hole response for an intercepted stratigraphic (i.e. not discrete) conductor, although I can see how they could be interpreted that way. So I'm more leaning towards the probabilities given by nature than trying to be Clouseau on those words in the promo. But Clouseau did have plenty of nature defying moments - so my mind is not closed to the missed target theory.
But thanks for pointing out that the primary conductor was sub horizontal. Upon checking we can see it was a little undecided initially from which direction to poke at it, so that's a tidy explanation as to why the off-hole conductor dips with hole azimuth.
GLTA
BOA Price at posting:
16.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
