copper confusion, page-166

roh

Well - I didn't realise that effort in understanding a stock is related to owning stock so if putting in effort in understanding something implies that I should own it to do so. Maybe there is a reason I don't own stock, which is why I research and test the statements made with questions.

I actually put up what I considered to be a pretty non-inflammatory post with observations based on my background and the information to hand so bare with me as I expand on a few of your rebuttal points. It seems that maybe you did not understand clearly some things I put in the post.


"In the 2011 Updated Resource estimate, there is less than 1.3 million tonnes of traditional oxide material at Rocklands , representing less than 4.5 % of the planned 10 years, 3mtpa mining operations.

Cobalt extraction from oxide material covers only a small part of the overall operation."

1. The Resource estimate never stated the tonnage of oxide material, or any other material for that matter. It presented total tonnage/grade estimates across 3 different resource categories (M/I/I) for a number of cut-off grades. I have seen the quoted tonnages you put up but would think that extracts from the resource estimate on the rest of the ore types would be informative.

2. I did not say copper oxide, I said oxide. I think you will find that a significant portion of, if not all of, the native copper ore is considered oxide. Why is this an issue - because there is none to negligible pyrite as it has been oxidised, weathered and gone. The plant is to produce a pyrite concentrate that contains the cobalt and if there is no pyrite then there is no cobalt. I have yet to see anything that explains how the cobalt will be retrieved from the oxide material so I made the comment. If you have any information that says different then more than happy to take it on board.


"As for your comment regarding the drilling results coming from wet ground, I think this would be more of a problem had the company used RC drilling rather than getting out diamond core.

Much better results are obtained from diamond core drilling than from RC as explained in the presentation on the CuDeco website "There is something very big under there"

1. Yes I know the majority of ore intersections are diamond - I was commenting on the results from the large diameter water bore which have been twinned by diamond and therefore the diamond results are likely to be used in any future resource estimates.

2. Your comment on the better results from diamond as evidenced in the company presentation means you did not read the updated resource estimate where comment on any difference was made. If you prefer the company presentation as providing the best interpretation of data analysis rather than an independent consultant that's your choice.


"You say you are a geologist. I would leave the metallurgy to the Company experts who have done exhaustive testing on a head sample containing ore from all the lithologies and represented a blend across the ore bodies."

Well roh, It is clear that your not even prepared to accept a different view on the world with a statement like that and it is really quite a condescending remark to make as well. But like you say, as a new poster who does not hold stock, I must be motivated by something to dare critique public information from a basis of informed knowledge or experience.

I still believe Wilgar will only ever be a small high grade pod but that is OK, as it is my opinion, as a geologist who has looked at a lot of different deposits.

We can differ in opinion but really, when there are some valid questions raised that just keep getting brushed aside with with generic rehashed statements (yes, yours is just still an opinion) it makes me wonder if people are prepared to really want to have an informed discussion.


I do actually hope the general public shareholders do well with their investment, I also think that they should be prepared to listen to others, just to be better informed.

Cheers
Tuskie