SAU (ASX) Sau Resource Stock Presentation

Originally posted by rhyolite ↑

Alright guys, let me break this announcement down for you:

"Orogenic deposits typically extend over 1 kilometre in depth and Kochang has only been developed to a depth of 150 metres" - this is complete nonsense. Orogenic systems are commonly deep seated, and the structures can certainly extend to several kilometres depth. However economic "deposits" of gold certainly do not "typically" extend to over 1km of depth. There would be very few orogenic deposits around the world that have gold resources, and are mining them, at over 1km of depth. How much is at depth also completely depends on how much has been eroded off at surface -i.e. very deposit specific. Statements like this, particularly in the header of your announcement, are misleading for most shareholders.

Sampling - every 5m, they've taken sample of 0.42m width (average), and 44% returned something decent. 66% of them came back with what BMV obviously consider uneconomic gold. Hopefully that wording is easier to understand.

The sampling table - this is very misleading. Take for example the 245 Level Driver 1 East. Using the second row (it's easy due to minimal samples), KCH_0450 to KCH_0456 sample range indicates they took 7 samples. The average channel width is listed as 0.28m. Interval Au grade is 3.09g/t. So they actually sampled a grand total combined interval of 1.96m (7 x 0.28) and it averaged 3.09g/t. Instead of indicating this, in the table, we have a listed interval length of 28.5m! I understand this is apparently the total interval including all the gaps between samples, but it makes the results read like they scored an interval of 28.5m @ 3.09g/t, which they haven't.

Also, if they took 7 samples, there should have been six gaps of 5m (if they sampled at 5m interval as stated), but this would add up to a total interval of over 30m, which isn't the case. So something doesn't make sense there - either incorrect or I don't understand. Happy to be corrected but the fact it is this difficult, even for someone like myself, is poor form.

Overall I think this release is completely misleading and goes back to my original comments about BMV.

Expand

Well, I guess we will have to wait and see what the market thinks, right?
I'm not a geologist so I can't talk about the first item, but I can talk about the sampling table. The number of samples does not have a direct relation to the total interval. If you take KCH_473 to 480, there are 8 holes, but the interval is only 12.6m. That means some of the holes did not return a good grade and they likely interpolated along the good strikes using some methodology. Also, 30 to 28.5 constitutes a 5% deviation from their average 5m distance between samples, which I would not characterize as misleading. I understand your skepticism, but I think this is a positive announcement. Again, time will tell...

GLTAH.

Well, I guess we will have to wait and see what the market...