copper confusion, page-110

Tuskie

"If a DFS is undertaken on the best information available then it can only be considered legit. but if the company truly believes like you say, that the resource is not correct, then a DFS can not really be done - they should concentrate on getting the resource right as after all this is what the whole project is driven by."


Well said. but does the company truly believe the jorc is wrong....if so should they have released it????

Ive tried to ask why more ddhs havent been done to get the resource right.. (about 3 years since jorc update? )

Its a few posters (some supposed proterozoic aged geos) that keep saying the resource is closer to 4% not the 1.7 equiv %... So imo its not the company saying this ..however they do put out results without the overall context imo which fuels the speculation again imo.

I find it odd that an asx 200 has that possible discrepancy and so much speculation re the main asset.

The problem i have is that if its that big a discrepancy, and given the time that has gone since that disappointing jorc...why hasnt the company done anything to "correct" it..

They have put out met results and keep putting close spaced selective holes..(did you see the wilgar 2m x 2m diamond hole program)...there was also a wheel of fortune video i think about the rc vs ddh capture of native copper...Why?..just drill some more holes if its going to materially affect the market cap perception etc etc?

all a bit odd for an asx 200 worth nearly a billion smackers ...and thats why i take the bait from some of the long term promoters whom i dont need to have my computer ignore...i can do that all by myself.

xx