Bermuda,I think this talk of a premium for native copper is just...

Bermuda,

I think this talk of a premium for native copper is just as much hogswash as the claims that Oceanwide has bought shares because they are hoping the share price will get to $28 and they can flip $130M for $500M capital profit.

Cathode copper gets premiums of 5% if it achieves 'five nines', which is 99.999% purity copper. This is assayed on a bundle by bundled basis, and there are often huge disputes on a bundle by bundle basis between a seller and an offtaker and it often ends up in the hands of an umpire lab's results. Also, the offtaker of cathode can reject premium quality labelling of a bundle of cathode for trivial things such as the HDPE pills stuck on the edges, the sheets being outsized, and so on. I know this, I worked in a SX-EW mine (twice!), I saw the kvetching.

The native copper at Rocklands isn't even 'three nines'. I don't know how the hell it's going to command a premium. It will, ipso facto of being 99.84% Cu by weight, cost less per contained tonne to ship than a chalcopyrite concentrate and the chalcocite concentrate. It won't be charged for TC's because it's not a sulphide - but the RC's could be savage. Do you even have any idea how troublesome it is to refine metal to five nines from corrupted scrap copper?

What I reckon you should do, being totally unreasonable and negative of course (as anything which isn't roses and sunshine is ofc negative) is find out the price of scrap copper and work off that. Its not premium, its not rainbows and lollipops, but it is closer to the product specifications of the native copper as it comes out of the ground.

As for the debate about OW's offtake, the way Jantimot portrays his model it behaves like a hedge book position, in that there's an obligation for CDU to meet the demands of the offtaker and the price is set by a formula or indeed a fixed flat forward. This is advantageous to Oceanwide, not to CDU.

But I guess thats the thing...is this a hedge arrangement put in place to cover the risk Oceanwide is taking in throwing $130M (or whatever) at a company with no Mining Lease, EIS, BFS, etc? Yes, yes it is. In essence, it covers their risk of CDU not completing, against potential future earnings.

I'm fascinated to see how this all turns out, and what the reality of the BFS and offtake is versus the wild arm-waving and prognostication you the cheersquad.

To answer the question of why anyone should care about what a non-holder says, I respond, why would anyone believe the tripe and drivel of people with vested interests? Serious investors believe independent auditors, experts and professionals; perhaps when on these wild west Intartubes Stock Discussion Sites, people should at least read the mad ravings of Independent Non-Holders - then of course, phone someone who actually knows what they are talking about.