copper confusion, page-105

Hi RNF

Generally geos don't have an issue signing off on results as they are generally not able to be misinterpreted. The issue usually about interpretation of results and interpretation is just that, one persons perspective on what the results mean. It has been said that if you gave 10 different geo's the same data they would have 10 different interps, none of which are generally wrong but some may have more credence than others.

Having worked in operations where once mining, a better understanding of the controls on mineralisation has resulted in a complete reinterp of the deposit being obviously needed, sometimes resulting a negative impact on the project. There are a number of classic examples of this occurring (even before mining has started) where a company has had to go to market with the results of a "review" of their deposits that has resulted in a significant change to their deposits. (the Bre-X fiasco is an extreme example)

That is why we like to get things pretty right to start with as there is nothing worse than getting to an ore zone predicted by the block model and finding it is not there or completely wrong. Doesn't make for good reporting up the line!!

Resources are open for criticism as they can be compiled using a number of different techniques and interpolation methods and can raise questions on the validity of the methodology at times. Even issues as to how classifications of resource categories are undertaken can be problematic at times but generally are pretty defensible Also the competent person will generally always have their work reviewed to ensure there are no real points of contest.

I should also say that I have no issue with the exploration and resource reporting I have seen and am not saying that the information that requires a competent persons sign off is of concern. The problem has generally been where that information is then used as leverage by other parties to make claims or statements. I'm sure you will not hear the people signing off making some of the statements I have read about.

I will also be careful on not commenting on things I have no ability to comment on.

ROH - no problems, I also over stepped the mark and offer an apology for that.

There is certainly speculation that there may be an under reporting of metal in the native copper in both drilling and as you have said, the resource. I would suggest that the company may be careful about these sorts of statements as they are entering into the world of being potentially of a material nature and until there is validity in a qualitative and quantitative nature it will really remain speculation. But it wouldn't surprise me if things change.

If a DFS is undertaken on the best information available then it can only be considered legit. but if the company truly believes like you say, that the resource is not correct, then a DFS can not really be done - they should concentrate on getting the resource right as after all this is what the whole project is driven by.

Cheers