Always a risk with exploration plays.  Missed deadlines are not...

Always a risk with exploration plays.  Missed deadlines are not good unless can be explained, but the Anns here compared to that other stock I know you are referring to are a little more realistic IMO on information (especially not over the top use of bigger than Ben Hur etc etc). The 5% comment one is one I will be looking in the next Ann because it was an ASX requirement for its removal, but visual representation plus suspect, total guess only, they might have also run an XRF over it as well (just a guess) before them blabbering the 5% comment  etc but the only results that count are assaying in a lab environment.  In other words if those assays all come in below 5% then that would be a concern too me on who we have on the ground.  This is an article written back in 2014, and before the more stringent controls came into been been more in line with lab work for reporting results:

https://www.aig.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AIG_News_115.pdf

Obviously they are rock samples to start with, so drilling is the final tester here on truth in any event.

With these type of plays I have learnt to invest small amounts/ok amounts upfront, i.e. not go all out,  and average up if things go good (but it limits losses if it goes south or limits the loss to what you can afford to lose).  Obviously, risk/reward is up to each holder but quality of management and meeting timeframes is a key, and any timeline misses you need to understand why and make your decisions following that answer etc (often in the Ann).  They have drilled targets,done DD drilling, on more than one occasion compared to that other play etc so on that front better, but obviously drilling results the key.

Could they speed up drilling - probably they could but it is a balance between funding and drilling etc etc etc.   Missed timelines for Lac are an issue and that IMO is reflected in the SP.

All IMO IMO IMO