xxxxxxwwwwww and Buddy, Here's a few random samples of my post from years ago to demonstrate my point, check all of them all if you like...
DearBuddy
Asyou have no doubt discerned I am much in the same boat as your good self. Ikept telling myself that "the copper is in the ground" and in mynaivety I believed the promise of a significant resource, whilst maintaining ahealthy scepticism in regards to Uncle Wayne's management style. I made themistake of thinking his arrogance and ignorance to the shareholders and presswas borne of an extreme confidence in what he intrinsically knew about theresource.
Asfor his statement "it will be the best piece of paper you will everhold", res ipsa loquitor never applied itself so truly.
Hewas either deluded about the resource or has not listened to the advice of hisgeologists or maybe like many megalomaniac tyrants and dictators in the past hejust lost touch of the reality of the situation. After all with the 4 years of"building" this "eye watering" JORC resource, to keepspruiking the anthemic "it's a world class resource" there must havebeen at some time some internal modelling that told them (the board) that thepublic spiel is not being confirmed by the numbers; otherwise there isincompetence within the organisation at the geologist etc level. I would dreadto think that he has been micturating on our backs and telling us that it hasbeen raining all this time.
Thefacts seem to be that it is just a copper mine, nothing outlandish butobviously from the now "locked-in" investor's point of view we needclarity that the resource is indeed an economic concern and he needs to beginto somehow re-establish some form of bona fides by honest and continuousdisclosure rather than a series of rearguard clarification notices andsuggestions about how "they" are debunking the real riches of theresource. It appears now that his own behaviour over the past four years hasdone that.
Inaddition the thumbs up process here in retrospect is amusing as posts whichoften I felt were well thought out and raised critical issues (posters such asyourself ZZedster and Peter Pumpkinhead) were rarely rated for their contentyet flippant remarks like "great post Nev" got plenty of thumbs up.Go figure
Ihave read this thread with bemusement. A good post to start the thread skip!
Afew years ago I raised the questions about Cousin Cameron's extraordinarilygenerous salary package and what he did to justify such a package and whatqualifications he had to justify being given such a package. I recall I washowled down by the cheer squad and given the usual bumpf about the appledoesn't fall far from the tree (and doesn't that appear correct!!!) and howthey both have come up through the school of hard knocks and a whole lot ofdiatribe about how the suits were "agin them all" they'll show us etcetc etc etc.
WellI asked of the company what does Cousin Cameron do? and no-one (there or inthis forum) has ever been able to give me any straight answer that makes anysense other than explanations that would make Sir Humphrey Appleby'sexplanations from "yes minister" appear like a kindergarten poem.
Iam sure he does something by way of liaise with the local inhabitants butwhether this extends beyond the nearest bar having a few drinks, who wouldknow. Does anyone?
DearNev,
Reyour post # 5510525
Youwrote:
"Iam a little bit intrigued that you could go to such lengths to pin point anarithmetic slip, without actually elaborating constructively on the centralargument being presented. You can make that 'disappointed' as well asintrigued!....LOL"
Sorryto disappoint you, but I thought I was being constructive in pointing out yourmistake so that your argument can be more accurate. I stated clearly that allthe maths on that thread was doing my head in, particularly as I had justarrived home from a hard days work. I was hardly derogatory or sarcastic in mypost and I hardly think that pointing out that your calculation was out by afactor of 10 is going to such lengths. If I had posted something objective likethat which was out by a factor of ten twice in the same paragraph, I would onlybe too pleased if someone pointed out the mistake for me. You of all people Nevhave put such an effort in to maintain debates and accuracy I thought you wouldbe very happy to have that point clarified.
Atthe end of the day the arguments fall along the lines of Uncle Wayne fan clubvs non fan club members and my only observation is that if the cobalt readingthat we are arguing about is suspect, does this mean that the other mineralreadings are suspect also?
Frommy understanding of spectrophotometery (Atomic absorption or induced plasma)the sample is assessed en masse not individually. The light emitted signal iswhat is picked up and accordingly registered by the relevant recording devicein whatever fashion. That is to say that cobalt, copper, gold, iron ,silver,rhubarb etc is measured simultaneously so if the reading for one is out ofwhack then what else is inaccurate? (hopefully if they are it is to thepositive)
Afterall this perhaps CDU and SGS should post a notice telling us reassuringly thatthe quality assurance for the assays done on all the other mineralsparticularly copper is absolutely accurate.
Theimplications for the JORC are enormous, I am unsure if this small point hasbeen brought up by to anyone in the forum to this juncture.
Sostuff the cobalt, reassure us all about the copper. Lets hope we hear somethingabout that aspect of the issue from CDU and SGS.
Expand
