Thanks for the additional context. “your interpretation will inherently be biased as a holder.” … that by in large is exactly my point, you don’t know that I am, and likewise I don’t know that you’re not…so imo the individual means and motive is far less relevant at least relative to the subject matter being added to the discussion, the content of which, in theory we can critically review (or at least attempt to). But again, I know we don’t see eye-to eye in this regard, so all good.
That said, there is naturally some bias in many aspects of investing based on individual situations or backgrounds, risk tolerance and overall strategy. But I don’t accept that holders (or non-holders for that matter) cannot objectively interpret information, be that HC-posts, asx announcements or anything else. I happen to agree with many of your (and others) prior technical views regarding CNB. I also disagree with some, or I just place a lower level of relevance to it based on my position. I would suggest that having an iterative investment sentiment is not the same as a bias, or at least not cognitive bias. If you mean simple positional bias in terms of my outlook for CNB – then yes, I am currently in favour (which is relative to my own situation). But this certainly isnt a fixed position. ps just saw todays announcement so I'm off to try and objectively digest it.
I’m also keen to see the initial metallurgy test work for Mt Hope, another important step towards understanding what the future potential might be. I personally don’t foresee any major met issues at Mt Hope – at least regarding primary Cu recovery through traditional crush/grind/float scenarios. Just to be absolutely clear – yes this is pure speculation on my part, solely based on the on the visuals that have been provided in the announcements and the mineralogical descriptions. So, straight copper recovery aside - the biggest risks in my mind from a geomet viewpoint are the presence and levels of any deleterious elements from a processing and waste material management perspective (e.g. gangue mineralogy and ore variability) and any penalty elements from a smelter perspective (e.g. arsenic, mercury, fluorine) …unfortunately that info might not be apparent from the first-pass ‘bench-top’ metallurgy test work. In that regard there are other examples of Cu orebodies with their own 'challenges' (albeit different flavors to what CNB are staring at) Ok Tedi has a relatively high F content, to the point where a reverse flotation process was required to remove the talc. A number of the IOCG copper deposits throughout the Carajás region of Brazil have problematic F levels….Vale’s Salobo deposit being the standout, it’s just lucky to have scale and enough contained metal that the product is still saleable despite F in concentrate levels of ~1500-2000 ppm (fluorine-removal line was put in especially by smelter). Even Prominent Hill has challenges - but is an example where sufficient test work at the right stages allowed the process flowsheet to be designed appropriately.
Again - not necessarily expecting high F(or other nasties) at Mt Hope, based on visuals it doesn't look to have significant F-bearing minerals (fluorite, apatite, white-mica etc). More just raising it as other examples of potential challenges for Cu ore bodies - and another reason why the met testing is important.
(20min delay)
