In answer to Bythefan: 1. I have made some investigations into...

In answer to Bythefan:
1. I have made some investigations into the ramblings of Bythefan. Sinosteel have manufactured more than 60 mineral processing plants in the past 5 years with 7 being for copper within China and elsewhere. The cost to manufacture, construct and commission in China is $US10m per 1mt throughput for a China Operations. Assume 3 times that cost for Australia which is the cost they charge in South America or $30m per 1 mtpa. That would require a cost of $90, plus allow $40m for infrastructure say $150m. I have asked a mate in the industry what a plant required by Rocklands would cost in Australia, he is with one of the largest process engineering groups in Australia. He said $A160m tops and at the moment things are a bit slow in the engineering and construction so probably around $140m for 3mtpa plant. He said if manufactured in China and constructed here around $125m. He said 3mtpa is not a big plant and only requires around 10mw of power.

2. With relation to your calls that Cudeco would have to issue another 65m shares. Cudeco just released a report that they would not be using the issue of new shares around these prices and made a statement last month that Azure is talking too or acting as financier of the project and talking to groups interested in participating in the project. Even if it was debt finance at 10% interest the interest cost is only $15m a year which is negligible considering $200m a year profit. So that puts that theory to bed does it not bythefan?

3. I have also heard that Sinosteel are standing behind the project and has offered finance. So where are you coming from? bythefan ?

4. So we are back where I started the EPS still remains at $1.76 per share. less the little interest bill which equates to 0.11c per share if there was debt finance, but hey there are plenty of smelters that will lend the money for no interest to get control of concentrates as well by the way.

5. You also said that the numbers I used did not account for recoveries. Well they actually did. As you would be aware under the JORC code recoveries have to be taken into account when recording Cu Equivalents and Cudeco have used the recoveries and the metal prices to come to the Cu Equivalent. They actually report it at the end of every announcement. You should take a look. The recoveries must be proved by metallurgical recoveries from a recognised lab. In the case of Cudeco it was Amtech in W.A.. So there you go again, bythefan

6. You commented on prices for copper. Well native copper commands a premium of over 10% above the LME copper price and is used in cooling of smelters which can only be cooled by adding copper. Most smelters have to use the copper they have already treated once to put back into the main smelter to keep the copper from going into a gas and into the atmosphere. If you don?t have scrap or native copper a smelter needs around 15% of its production to cool the smelter. The concentrates are in big demand and the current TC/RC (Smelt/Refine charge) is now at $US30 tonne. The Japanese Benchmark is now obsolete. Considering copper is $A8500 tonne the TC/RC of $30 makes the cost irrelevant. I noticed in your response to me that the TC/RC costs 25/26% of the price of the copper. You are actually saying that it costs 26% of the price of copper @ $8500 tonne or the cost to smelt/refine 1 x tonne of copper costs $2210 per tonne. Well it?s actually $30 tonne.
My astute knowledgeable friend it cost the same to smelt/refine a tonne of zinc as it does a tonne of copper. You are suggesting in your argument that it costs $2210 to smelt/refine 1 tonne of zinc? May you explain how it costs $2210 to smelt one tonne of zinc when the price of zinc is only $US1984 tonne? You are saying that for every tonne a mine produces of Zinc they lose $US225 per tonne. Well that wouldn?t be a very profitable business, so you need to re-address your argument. Go & do some research? realize how ignorant your post is, but hey, you posted it, downramping ?no surely not?

7. Your argument that Au/co cannot be recovered in the oxide zone. I have never seen a report by Cudeco where they have said they are even going to treat the oxides and how could they in a floatation plant. Another furphy bythefan showing your lack of mine process knowledge . Well the metallurgical reports put out by Cudeco say that the Cobalt is in the pyrite and the gold is in the chalcopyrite,. Both are in the sulphide zone, where is the mention of oxides????
Wrong again bythefan, downramping ? surely not?

8. I am happy to enter into discussion which is what the HC t=Forum is all about, but if you want to enter the technical side of the industry and the costings of the industry you really need to know what is going on in the industry and not try to muddle your way through the discussion using non factual numbers and trying to create a comparison between what the metallurgical results or payments for concentrates for cobalt in a little African country like the Congo. Your argument and comparisons are just absurd. We are talking about a project with cobalt in clean pyrite in Australia and a dirty concentrate of unknown unwanted and usually toxic mix concentrate from Africa which only demands a 50% payability. The reason payability is 50% is because the concentrates are usually contaminated with either uranium or other unwanted elements.

Finally: I am happy to debate with you, but please don?t try to downramp unless you are prepared to used the correct numbers and assumptions and compare apples with apples. You see there are people that read these posts and some taken them seriously and it is not seen to be Australian to say things that may not be accurate. I wish you well and hope you have a look at my numbers too find out my numbers are up to date and deadly accurate. all the above is imoo, good luck all

Ikeymoses

?Can?t be that many Indians you lie?? General George Armstrong CUSTER.