They drilled 740 metres RC in two drill holes in the December 2018 quarter. At $150 per metre that amounts to a $110,000 drilling cost (excluding some other costs I haven't included and if move to assays also looking at further costs). Total program costs for RC drilling (including assaying) are around A$350 per meter, could be less in downturns and obviously also dependent on the RC drilling rig used as there are different types and hence drilling rates can vary, but teh drilling depth of the RC two drills were pretty decent btw etc http://detcrc.com.au/2014/breakthrough-technology-will-cut-mineral-exploration-drilling-costs-by-85/
So the two holes themselves are possibly about 45% of the exploration and evaluation costs in the December quarter, and the subsequent assaying (and other costs) would represent the bulk of the exploration and evaluation expenditure in that category proposed for upcoming March quarter IMO (assuming they get access to funds btw going forward). Still stunned at the admin and corporate costs here which represented 33% of the total Dec quarter costs themselves. As an aside you can use hand held instruments (XRF) to gauge mineral content at a high level, but only assaying itself will determine the actual grade and what can find itself into a JORC Code, because XRF instruments only provide a rough guide and furthermore cannot detect all minerals. Nonetheless, some of the minerals hand held XRF instruments can identify, but assaying required to confirm the exact grade, is copper, zinc and cobalt (but not gold) btw, so just wondering whether, apart from the SH action here, the BOD is moving to get this reinstated because the latest two drills at Lloyds might be ok (obviously assays to confirm), and been listed gives a better opportunity to raise capital than becoming a private company btw. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3043/fs20163043.pdf
In terms of your comment on the previous Sept 2017 two holes at Lloyds the more interesting point is what type of RC drill rig did they use because it hit refusal and didn't hit their intended target of 300 metres per drill hole but a summary of the assays were in the quarterly for Dec 2017 from my reading (but can't find full assays like you and actual depth drilled, and the results didn't look that great by the way from my interpretation of the scant information, and possibly not surprising given they didn't drill to intended depth): Post #: 30695059 At least their latest 2 holes drilled in the Dec 2018 quarter at Lloyds hit the required depths.
Anyway, the above is a theory, but possibly the more appropriate theory is the BOD wanting this to relist so that their 'reputations' whist battered and bruised are not completely trashed and in tatters were HDY delisted IMO. And obviously will be interesting how the ASX deals with the happenings here, and the consequences, if any, that the Directors may face in future etc etc.
Time will tell, but as a VIC holder I am happy we do have a new BOD and hopefully we relist (and hopefully were HDY to relist you also get BOD changes and/or a new BOD as well).
Anyway, like VIC, were it to relist there will be immediate SP pain as SH run for the exits, but with positive drill results (and BOD changes) there is hope to recover lost monies in the medium to longer term, and it remains just that hope on the drill and a competent BOD. The dump will be painful on relisting in any event for HDY (and VIC) on relisting, were that to happen.
The more immediate problem is funding, noting HDY has a cash balance of $166,000 but proposed March quarter spend of $410,000, of which 43% is on admin and corporate costs (just a large percentage is all I will say). These costs have been above 30% - 40% on all the quarterlies I looked at for 2018 btw, before even looking at staff costs. I presume within these catogories, you will find the subset on what the Directors have been paid and a question is whether they should be working for nothing at the moment given they IMO are accountable as to why HDY (and VIC) are in suspension etc.
