joke, page-28

re: grades? orga,

my use of the expression 'woofer' is merely my counterbalance to others that over promote the stock.

RIO dropped the balance of its Australian exploration initiatives in 1995.(The year that the copper price peaked uring the decade of the 90s). It began dropping a lot of exploration dirt in 1989/90 though it does rotate properties early that dont make tonnage/grade benchmarks.

This propert would not have made their benchmark, along with most others in this country. (Note RIO had virtually nothing on the copper/gold front outside of Cobar despite big exploration programmes up and down the east coast). It was already out of zinc-with the float of Pasminco.

As to having 0.5million tonnes of resources, having a 5mt plus target is nice but is it probable? No, not really.

Have a look at the original resource estimate given when the project was acquired earlier last year. It is in the lowest category of JORC classification, ie a lot of drilling still required. More importantly , do a back calc of the block modelling-using 200 metres depth, and a specific gravity of three, the projected orebody is probably around 300 metres long and 3 metres wide.

The width with the average grade suggested is not going anyway in a hurry.

Then the comparative comments about Tritton-the later has the grade/width. BLR does not. And a further furphy in comparisons is the presence of zinc which is not the same as TTT. That means a seperate recovery circuit=more capex. It also means potential minor penalties for the respective zinc and copper concentrates.

This management team appear to overlook metallurgy somewhat frequently-the recent IBR comments?

It is currently a small subeconomic deposit. The probability of increasing the regional chances of being economic are not very high in my opinion given the details provided to date. The property was acquired for scrip ($1m worthof confetti), it has not been advanced too far in 12 months.

Cheers,TAS