Havingfun,Am still amazed at posters doing back of the envelope...

Havingfun,

Am still amazed at posters doing back of the envelope figures as if the resources are one homogenous orebody.

This beasty encompasses 3 seperate copper mineral types and each has its own capital cost and operating cost for metal recovery/sale.

To simplify this and pick a figure of 50% for the profit/cashflow margin is totally misleading.

For example if a reasonable percentage of the dirt is oxide then SX-EW comes into play but you loose all gold cobalt and other credits for a start.

If sulphide then you will keep part of your gold credits but loose cobalt unless you add to the capital cost of an additional circuit. Conversely the capital costs, (subject to attempting to recover cobalt) are lower but you then have higher operating costs thanks to the expense associated with concentrates where TCs/RCs and transport take a third of your revenue on average.

On the massive shrinkage in potential tonnage finally reported (at 0.8% cutoff) the balance between oxides, sulphides and transitional ore becomes hypercritical.

My comments historically have always wanted the break up between the three. If you read the back end of the resource announcement the other day, before the numerous clarifications and re announcements of appointments, they have them but chose not to differentiate. Yet another question mark on management in my opinion.

But then I am only a faceless poster on HC. What would I know?

Cheers, TAS