i don't see any negative announcements , page-12

J, I'm not sure about assaying the waste material and what additional benefit it would achieve. We've got 2 competent individuals signing off the report that the back tested head grade resulted in recovering up to 98%.

In terms of your:

"If the company really IS encouraged by recovery rates, why not tell us what they are, what a roaring success the bulk test was?"

I refer you to the following statement in the initial bulk trial results:

"...the results from the testwork showed the recoveries to be in line with, or better than industry average and the work has confirmed the ability to produce a clean native copper metal concentrate."

In terms of your:

"Why would the Cu recovery be greater than the Co?"

I'll refer to one of the geologist that follows this thread but understand as a general rule co recovery is usually a seconary and therefore a less complete extraction process. From looking at various Cu/Co plays in DRC I understand that Co recovery from sulphides is approx 20% less and a lot more again for oxides.

Of more relevance to CDU is that where the Co is coming from and why we are seeing such high recoveries @ +85%. Per an informed poster Opaline (Post: 5688977):

"My understanding is that in the metallurgical treatment of primary mineralisation at Las Minerale, cobalt reports to a pyrite concentrate rather than to a chalcopyrite concentrate. As you are no doubt aware, extraction of cobalt from pyrite is more straightforward compared to its incomplete extraction from blister copper slag if cobalt is reporting to chalcopyrite."

At the end of the day you'll just have to wait for all the facts that you seem to be baulking at to be laid out in front of you. For me and a few informed holders we have a enough now the be comfortable in our decision to hold our position.