shorting again, page-120

max, perhaps the reason why the company is unsuccessful in communicating the importance of the bulk trials is because they were not successful in predicting the full scale scenario. On 16th December 2010 they announced that the coarse NCu nuggets were scalped form the HGPR feed - they don't seem to have been able to replicate this commercially to date. The bulk trials were also going to provide additional data for the final phase of the DFS - which also haas not been forthcoming.

There have been other announcements about the scalping of the large NCu. The flowsheet still shows this as being one of the copper recovery streams. But there has been no confirmation that this is really working.

Interestingly, that report refers to the host rock having an average sg of 4.0 - 4.5. That is enormously dense host rock! Even denser than a previously reported 3.7%, and nearly twice the sg reported in the JORC (although apparently the geo can't know what he is talking about as the deposit is so unique).

Even more interestingly, the report refers to the NCu testing on 5t of core samples, taken from 537m of PQ (85mm) cores. But if you work out the sg of that sample, it is only 1.67. This is exceedingly light for rock - actually, it's probably not possible except for volcanics with occlusions.

So it looks like CDU is all at sea when it comes to determining what the sg of the rock is. And that has a huge impact on how much copper is actually there. 4% Cu in rock with an sg of 4.5 gives you 180kg/cu.m., whereas 4% Cu in rock with an sg of 1.67 only gives you 66.8kg/cu.m