Ok BT...I will agree to disagree Always good to know what else...

Ok BT...I will agree to disagree

Always good to know what else is going on in the region, which is correct...
To Say... “it's always dangerous to draw assumptions from that knowledge”.... is equally assumptive that to say that it doesn’t... What appears to be the case in one 'nearby' project does not definitively 'mean' anything elsewhere... correct but we are the Carajas and SM has definitely stated the similar mineralised trends do exist...5% dilution during mining is a realistic value based on the quality of the sulphides very apparent in the cores...To Say...”I'd go for 15% average dilution...in our case I'd prepare for worse...”; Then to carry on rubbishing Pedro Branca with...”against your international mining experience, long skinny vertical mineralised zone, restrictions, associated problems with prefeasibility Study, Cut-Off grade will shrink the mineralised zones, smaller, skinnier, discontinuous ore bodies, avoid sterilisation, not much profit, mining costs will be high, extraction and processing rates limited...

Geez BT any other opprobrium to heap on here...If it is so bad ....SELL your 1million shares and move on...but wait there’s more empirically unsubstantiated criticisms... You Say...”Ores produced will be copper ores and the plant will be set up to produce copper”...Correct... You Say...“Grind size will be the largest possible to maximise throughput at optimum recovery rates for Cu...” Incorrect we don’t know; the PFS and met. Analysis has not been released yet...You Say ...”If the liberation size for gold is different then, as it's essentially a copper project and it is unlikely the plant can be optimised for both metals simultaneously...”... In correct, we don’t definitely know yet and irresponsible to say otherwise, you are not sitting in SM’s lab looking exactly at what he’s looking at i.e. thin sections etc, etc, etc....To Say ...”Apologies if this doesn't fit in with the day-trading pumpers posting regularly on here” is a snide and back handed remark to say the least...

You Say...”management are good; TP you respect, SM of good calibre but on the fence. Woody is good but irreconcilable conflict of business philosophy between TP and Woody a pumper and dumper, which worries you....drifted from production a year ago to tenement acquisitions and speculative drilling (incorrectly say too many minerals) . You worry about TP’s mine disappearing while reverting to exploration with Xstrata and Vale are on board doesn't make them any less of a threat...” [Vale is NOT on the board]...paradoxically these comments are in direct conflict with your closing remark...

I do agree with you that if “we hit the mother lode, would expect them to insist on production and off-take agreements that suit them and effectively take over when we appear to be doing well by flexing muscles”...You then incorrectly assume... “MW will be aware of this and can't wait”;
While then correctly stating...”TP will want AVB to remain independent...run and grow the company, not to sell out and become an employee of a faceless monolith: he's been there before... TP knows a producing junior attracts a premium in T/O negotiations and then TP’s share buying significant, as is the direction his feet point in: at the moment he offloads or makes for the exit so will BT....SO let me get this straight...you hate AVB and all its assets, future potential and management...except for TP and whether he buys AVB shares or not...what a mixed up investment philosophy...
At Mt Isa Mines where I worked for years, we had a saying leave the metallurgists locked up in there laboratories and keep them the hell away from public relations...for good reason