cudeco(cdu) trading - representations, page-279

Out of curiosity I found this document and spent a bit of time reading the section titled "3.6 JORC Issues in Relation to Aug 18, 2010"

Wow - who ever that author is really has a bone to pick.

Personally, they (the author(s)) were arguing that there is (1) an inability of the JORC requirements to adequetly represent the mineralisastion, and:
(2) a blatent attempt to discredit the professionals who undertook this work.
(3) and claim that there must be either incompetency or bias in the way the resources were undertaken.

I came out of reading it thinking - are they really calling the people who did the resource work incompetent (look at the competent person statements). And, if there is a basis for testing the proposed discrepancy (as it only seems to be in the supergene zone) why has this not been done??

I actually laughed a couple of times - although I know the author was being serious - with some of the glaring omissions or preferred opinion stated.

"Any consultant(s) not experienced in assessing Rocklands style native copper mineralization and prepared to ignore indications from bulk trials, and who were determined to adopt a stringent and ultraconservative view of the style of mineralization insitu would inevitably misrepresent what Rocklands would be capable of delivering once mining took place."

(1) where the bulk trials ever stated to be indicative of the average grade of the native copper mineralisation in the deposit or planned to be mined - or were they "selected" intervals.
(2) Is the author questioning the experience of the competent person??

All biased, opinionated and unsubstantiated, and as far as publishing the people (at that time) behind the JORC Code....... - I'm not surprised that this "report" hasn't really carried much weight in industry.

"However the real problem faced by the company is that by complying with ASX JORC code requirements,and leaving itself open to the interpretations of independent experts, has translated into a situation where a valuable resource has been seriously undervalued. Crucially, an essential component of mineralization has gone missing in reported resource estimations."

To think that people will believe a company before an independant and if there is evidence of "mineralisation gone missing", would not the company not have released this if they believed it to be incorrect!! Any resource consultant would love to have the best data.

I also see no substantive evidence as to why "a valuable resource has been seriously undervalued." except for hearsay.

I also note that there are images of some pretty high grade resource blocks in some of the 3d views of the mineralisation - would be nice to see those tonnages and grade reported with any data on the samples collected for the Met testwork.

I only read this chapter and decided the rest was not worth perusing.

It is a detailed diatribe but really does end up sounding disgruntled and skewed. I wondered who the finger was being pointed at really.

Bob the builder