Tas2I think that your comments in relation to Native Copper are...

Tas2

I think that your comments in relation to Native Copper are spot on. I had fogotten about the RMS situation, and your comparisons with their 'nuggety deposit' could hold a lot of merit, although I haven't done recent research on that particular company.

I have researched 'resource modeling issues' though and there are plenty of case histories where resources have been upgraded after reviews of the geological assumptions made by consultants, and adjustment of the modeling parameters input into the various models.

The reasons for the adjustments are generally to do with the final outcomes from theoretical modeling exercises, not matching the actual realities presented by the resource through drilling and then later bulk sampling and mining. A re-think of assumptions and methodology has lead to changed estimates more in alignment with the realities of the resource.

I believe that is what will happen with Rocklands too and the fact that bulk sampling returned 4.3% copper grades suggests as much.


Blythefan

I am puzzled by your statement

So, we need to ask ourselves the question

I am assuming that your 'we' refers to the down ramping non holders as such types are extremely negative in regard to this stock.

From my perspective and amongst the share holder group generally (that I am in contact with), I think that you will find that the following is more accurate:

---

We are puzzled by the consultant's low ball resource numbers but we are relaxed that even the numbers as stated can justify much higher prices than exist currently. We, do believe however that actual mining will reveal grades more in line with original expectations than what has been stated by external consultants, and meanwhile we are supportive of the Buy Back in preventing share price manipulation at a critical period for the company.

---

Cheers
nev