great share buy back, page-59

So now you are hanging the whole thing on 5 individual metres which were assayed by a method picked by the company which turned up more copper from those particular metres than the assays done by a reputable laboratory using a standardised, recognised method which - as discussed ad nauseum before- it used to eliminate the nugget effect.

The thing you also seem to be forgetting is the statement "a porous decomposed rock". So, if you have, say, a rock looking like an Aero bar made from native copper, its copper grade could, indeed, be 30%. The bulk density of the zone must be known well, and then this will weight the grade contribution to the resource quite considerably.

Consider, the bubbles of nothing make it really something. Like, turning an SG of 3.8 to 2.3 in the supergene zones by, I don't know, actually measuring it some time between 2006 and 2010.

Ie; each cubic metre of the 2006 resource weighs 3.8 tonnes. With a 1600L x 50h x 30w volume, and a 4.3% Cu grade (as the cheersquad seems to believe from the 7 selected holes, is the right one) the 3.8SG resource of the native copper zone weighs 9.12Mt and contains 390Kt Cu.

However, a decomposed porous rock with an SG of 2.3, however, contains only 237Kt. That's nearly 40% less.

Would that have been an important bit of data to know before 2010? Perhaps price sensitive, one may say? That the real crime here was not the initial assumption, but the lack of disclosure about the SG, and leaving aside the potential voodoo upgrade from the native copper?

Face facts, your grade is negated simply by a realistic SG, and you're no better off. This is why I am, if not puzzled, concerned that there was no statement of the SG of the native copper zones made anywhere. It would be good to know if you get 4.3% of 2.3 or 4.3% of 3.8.

As for Nev, you carry on about a "a theoretical 'geological' resource based on various assumptions delivered by external consultants, and the company's developing mining resource based on real drilling results and the empirical results of real metallurgical investigations, and yet the two perspectives appear to be at odds with each other."

You seem to be saying that the consultants are working with...data other than that furnished to them by the company? That the company geologists and engineers somehow...are using different dfata than that delivered to the consultants? That the consultants live in floofy la-la land? Really, guy?

We back the consultants because they explicitly state in their JORC Resource Report they used not only the actual data of the company, but the interpretations of the company personnel, and from this they derived their findings. You are now apparently claiming these consultants have, in essence, FALSIFIED DATA?

You said it yourself, in dot point. They used mining design assumptions - based on data from the company. The accuracy of the grades given to them - and they did indeed find that there were QA/QC issues, so clearly the error is not in their court but in the "real data" created by the company. The rest of it is just twaddle created by your lack of knowledge about the resource estimation process and best classified as tinfoil hat conspiracies.

The metallurgical results are real and indisputable to you because they suit your view of a miracle upgrade (minus or minus 40% in terms of contained copper due to SG). But, by your own logic, Ammtec is also a consultancy...so why are you believing them? Why believe one consultant's "real" data and not another's false data?

Truly. When you not only stoop to semantics, but you impugn the reputation of consultants, and select data while ignoring other data, can anyone really give your opinion any real weight?

Yet, finally, at the end, you accept the consultants cash flow projections - again, I argue, simply because they suit your own prejudices with this stock and your wholly implausible voodoo geological theories.