Georgiethe pupMy answer to you is an emphatic NO!Quite the...

Georgiethe pup

My answer to you is an emphatic NO!

Quite the opposite in fact

Semantics has nothing to do with the value or otherwise of the Rocklands resource. It all comes down To:

Whether the copper is real,

How much copper there is, and,

Whether the copper can be economically extracted.

Now as it happens, the consultants have given Rocklands a BIG tick on all 3 counts, yet there are good arguments to suggest that they have been very conservative with their estimations.

The crux of the issue to my mind is that we have a theoretical 'geological' resource based on various assumptions delivered by external consultants, and the company's developing mining resource based on real drilling results and the empirical results of real metallurgical investigations, and yet the two perspectives appear to be at odds with each other.

Everyone is free to take sides, but in backing the consultants, please explain why the actual grade for bulk testing results, (which are real and indisputable) are considerably above the grades estimated by external consultants for just a quarter of the sweet spot of Las Minerale.

As for share price predictions I challenge you to find one that I have put forward. If you have followed my commentary you would realize that I am not a trader and have nothing to say about price trends.

I do however have a very positive view of what might be reasonable for the value of the company's share price as represented by the now 'known knowns' of the Rocklands resource.

Future value, even based on the consultants theoretical estimations, is substantially above current prices and there is a very good chance that the Martin Place Securities more optimistic scenarios are not far off the mark as well. They may be conservative even over the fullness of time, with further exploration success perhaps coming into the mix as well as a plant upgrade that provides for increased throughput!


Jtaylor1

I don't think it is a case of more knowledge. It is more a case of a difference of opinion.

Especially when the consultants are restricted in their theoretical modeling of the resource by:

The Geological interpretations utilized in assessing the Rocklands deposit

Proposed mining design assumptions and how much waste material has actually been included into the resource causing grade dilution that may not take place in practice

programming algorithms in proprietary resource modeling software designed to smooth out anomalous grades (which is appropriate for most deposits, but I suspect not for Rocklands)

the accuracy of the variography charts that have been utilized,

the accuracy of grades that have been provided to them

the accuracy of specific gravity data provided to them, and

the various decisions taken with input parameters to the 'black box' modeling, software which in retrospect may not be completely valid for the Rocklands resource.

Tas2 touched on this with the problems in getting accurate resource estimations with 'nuggety resources' where the 'nuggety character' is much much more than occasional drifts of higher grade through the mineral deposit. The current controversy relates to Rocklands having significant amounts of high grade supergene in the 800m bonanza zone that is just not reflected in the consultants estimates of the resource. Why?

In any case jtaylor1, once again, it is not a huge issue as the cash flow numbers based precisely on the consultant's estimates, still support prices well above the current share price as MPS have pointed out. That fact appears to be lost on many of the non holders, and possibly explains why the large holders are not deserting the ship as I have tried to demonstrate.

Cheers
Nev