"classic (major) porphyry system...", page-60

Hi Matt,

I agree, the results from CD-31 for the interval 125m to 262m were excellent.

Just a word of caution with how you read the intervals, for CD-31 the intervals between 55m and 125m together with the interval from 262m to 314 do not have 1.68% Cu (that is the average over the whole 55-314 interval which includes the high grade bit). The average grade for these intervals is 0.39% Cu and 66ppm Mo. You can check the calculations using this tool:

http://www.corebox.net/drill_interval_calculator/?data=255,1.68,310,,,137,2.79,520

The other interesting fact is that it seems that for reporting the exploration results it seems MNC has been using a cutoff grade of 0.13% Cu or less (check the intercept on CD-31 between 16m - 32m), sure that can allow you report thicker intercepts than if the 0.2% Cu had been used.

Now, a problem with the really low grade ore (0.2-0.3% Cu almost half of the current resource) is that it is not likely it can be processed profitably through a flotation process. It is low grade even for heap leaching (which produces copper cathodes).

Anyway it seems quite clear that MNC is aiming to produce concentrates as it has shown a pipeline in figure 1 of the recent announcement, and has previously shown the proposed location of a tailings storage facility (albeit on someone else's tenement as shown on Diagram 1 of the July 2010 BGF report: http://www.metminco.com.au/data/file/BGFJuly10%20final.pdf ) and has reported the results of flotation testwork (april 2010 quarterly).

That said, it needs higher grade Cu ore to feed a flotation plant, as otherwise low head grades result in low recoveries and uneconomic production (plus massive volumes of tailings).

In my opinion MNC would need to drill more around CD-31 to determine whether there is enough high grade mineralisation to support a starter pit which can pay for the infrastructure.

Alejandro
---------------------
DYOR, this is not investment advice
STO, BDR, TRY, PEM, HCH, ELT