pilot plant & bulk testwork results ..., page-139

Grar: up a creek, sans paddle.

To answer leebe;

"No mention of DODH017 in that release. That's another beastie metallurgical hole assayed late last year. 113m @ 5.24% Cu, including 76m @ 7.28% Cu."

OK, this is where people also get confused with these things. You should look at the mass accumulated intercept as well as the numbers. 113 x 5.24 = 592 metre-percent Cu. 76 x 7.28 = 553 metre-percent Cu. So out of the total interval, 76m is at 7.28% Cu and the rest is 1.07% Cu. Thus most of the copper is in the 76m section.

I direct you at their announcement 10/06/10 for some of their other announced holes. eg;

LMRC302 - 67m @ 0.85% in 3 zones.
48m @ 0.92% Cu eq. from 21m
then way down the bottom, 9m @ 0.73% Cu eq from 279m and 10m @ 0.59% Cu eq. from 305m

LMRC359 - 49m @ 0.84% Cu eq. - all of it below 125m

DODH007 - 25m @ 1.32$ Cu eq. from 319m

DORC095 - 130m @ 1.59%, with 116m @ 1.7% from 25m.

In all these cases, firstly, the headline intercept is misleading. LMRC302 should not read 67m @ 0.85%. If they want to include the lot it would read 285m @ 0.2% Cu from 21m because it includes all the waste. Either its one intercept, or several. Lumping widely separated intercepts together into one total intercept is misleading. I'll be phoning the AusIMM about this one, as well.

LMRC359 should read 125m @ 0.3% if they want to lump it together.

So their better intersections need rewriting.
DODH067 is not 189m @ 2.16% Cu eq. It is properly expressed as 265m @ 1.51% Cu eq. Same copper, waste included.
DODH086 which they say is 169m @ 1.75% Cu is actually 195m @ 1.51% Cu eq.
DODH071 is not 128m @ 1.22% Cu eq. It is 330m @ 0.47% Cu eq.
DODH030 is not 49m @ 1.91% Cu eq. It is 77m @ 1.21% Cu, waste included.

So. Yes, there are some good grades and good intercepts, but the shoddy way in which CDU reports "intercepts" actually factually misrepresents the intercept grade by lumping together disparate zones of mineralisation without taking into account the intervening waste. This is, frankly, unprofessional and against the JORC code.

If you go and recalculate their intercepts you can see how the whole deposit may start to get downdraged. Is your 76m @ 7.28% actually spread over a 300m section, in 9 separate high grade intervals which should be spread out to, for instance, give 300m @ 1.84%? I don't know, I can't be bothered finding out but you can see my point, I hope.

It is also against geological practise to lump primary and oxide intercepts together as one. Take LMRC302. There is 200m of rock separating the two zones - one is oxide, the other is clearly primary.

Here's a message to charlie and the crew. Don't make me dig deeper. Every time I do, I just dig up more problems. I am taking this to AusIMM and the ASX this is clearly bullshnitzel.