pre-open, page-22

Shadowboxer,
I had a bit of a look at the Rocklands South drill data recently and my thoughts are;

1. At least 4,958m of drilling has so far been completed to test a 40m strike length of the target. Drilling from 2 directions has resulted in the overlap of several of these holes. Conservatively, this has cost >$600,000 in my opinion. With so many other high priority targets to test, and especially during this time of pressure on the s/p, why would they drill so many holes into such a small area?

2. Some very good Cu grades have been intersected.

3. I don't believe that the pit de-watering bores fortuitously intersected this “new” Rocklands South mineralisation. WM quoted, "Whilst luck plays a large part in any discovery, the placement of pit-dewatering holes to concurrently “explore” areas where little or no drilling exists, whilst also providing the required pit-dewatering results, is an example of where a little ingenuity has paid off."
The drill hole cross sections indicate that earlier drilling had intersected the zone prior to the drilling of the dewatering bores, and, why did they drill 4 dewatering bores along a 40m section of the proposed pit? Must be a lot of water in this area!

4. The pit de-watering bore NVB018 returned substantially higher grade and wider intersection than diamond holes DODH457 that twinned it. An analysis of the data for these holes indicates substantial smearing or sampling bias in the percussion (water bore) hole.

5. Reporting intersections at such depths using a 0.2% Cu cut-off can be a bit misleading. Drill hole DODH459 is reported as having an intersection of 25m at 1.8% Cu from 211m to 236m. The data released in the announcement show the reported interval to comprise the following intersections;
211 to 219m 8m at 0.32% Cu
219 to 225m, 6m at 6.32% Cu
225 to 236m, 11m at 0.17% Cu
Why bother incorporating the hanging and footwall “waste” in the intercept unless you wanted the intersection to look a bit fatter?

6. There's evidence to suggest that the mineralisation rapidly weakens to the SE. No results from hole NVB040, drilled 17m to the SE of NVB038 were reported and the nearby diamond hole DODH470 only intersected 7m at 2.97% Cu.

7. As far as I’m aware, drill holes DODH463, 466, 467, 468 and 469 have not been reported in any releases. I wonder if they were drilled to test for strike extensions but came up as dusters?

8. As previous posters have commented, the holes have been drilled parallel, or at a very low angle to the mineralised structures meaning that true widths will be significantly narrower. Why did CDU decide to drill at these angles, when their earlier drill holes in the same area were at a more appropriate angle to the structure? True widths of the high grade mineralisation appear to be <10m.

9. A back of the fag packet estimate for the resource drilled below the base of the proposed pit is ~<200,000t at ~3% Cu (1% Cu COG) for <6000t of contained Cu. (Perhaps a 1% addition to the last reported resource) There are many contradicting holes intersecting a small area, so without the aid of down-hole survey data it is difficult to make a more robust interp' and estimate.

In conclusion, some nice Cu mineralisation has been intersected but in my opinion all of this work will have no material impact on the global resource. Would the money not have been better spent drilling some shallow surface targets?