copper confusion, page-88

OMG - its 2am and I am posting!!!!! Sorry ROH but I am real, a geologist, a current mine development geologist and non fictional. If the posting time means that the comment is not valid.......... Sorry, I therefore know nothing obviously.

I wish I had the credentials of Bob the Builder as you state I could be, I would not be prepared to battle on if I had that cash cow........

I have been interested in the Rocklands deposits for a while as they are a standout geologically and are something to understand in exploration strategy, so I have been reading the CDU posts also for a while (initially out of curiosity) and decided that something needed to be said to bring the comments back to reality. I actually laughed ROH when you said I "have obviously not read all the reports otherwise you would have known" Mate - have read them and believe I am very obviously in a better position to be a critic with the statements that were made.

I'm not posting to play games or to antagonise as a non investor but I am an interested geologist and mine developer who has worked in the NW region of QLD for a while. My interest is in seeing how things are developed and managed (both from a mining but managing shareholder/publicity) I have a right to freedom of speech that is based on published fact and interpretation therefore. The interpretation and observation may not be agreeable to some!! but more than happy to explain outside of here why I reached conclusions that are based on published data or industry standard of interpretation of data.

I agree with others ROH that your rhetoric on the upside is a cut and paste blather rather than being based on reasonable requirements for having confidence.

Your cut and paste of:

"When the amended EIS submission has been approved and the final capital costs are available for the revised mining plans,the Company will be in a position to complete a DFS."

actually is naive in too many levels to believe that they require an EIS submission to have an DFS completed and approved............. I would also dissagree with your "logical explanation in the 2012 Annual Report regarding the issuance of a DFS" Have you ever been involved with one, if not, why do you think you are in a position to answer in a place of knowledge, or belittle criticism about something you have no experience with.

Another thing ROH - I admitted my position on the shareholding to demonstrate transparency. I do not get why it is interesting that I comment as a geologist who has 20yrs experience in mine development (but you can bag me if you choose not to take it on face value) when I was stating observations. You have every right to choose to ignore them but please be careful with the way you choose to state your disagreement as someone may call you one day on those and the basis that they are made. Happy to discuss resource/reserve protocols if needed personally as I am a competent person under the JORC code for this deposit style and commodity(s).

Again I say - the Rocklands deposits are special in their level of native copper enrichment and the spectacular grades above the primary zone. I would love to find one of these and am interested in discovering the best way to maximise benifit to the investor. I am just looking for the data.

Tuskie - AKA Bob the Builder......