Member Info for Strider4

DG - that's a good one: FR "your confrontational this afternoon - your usually reserved and more considered". Cracked me up anyway.

FR - while you're there, be a dear, and explain to me what the term cuttoff means wrt mineral resources.

price performance again today. Bodes well for a very festive run up to Christmas and into the New Year.

It's alright to be wrong every now and again, but at least he should have the humility to accept the fact, instead of getting a spade so that he can keep on digging.

Shipright - the answer to your question earlier "Does it matter?" is yes it matters a great deal.

If FR were in fact right and Alpala's overall grade was 0.3% I would be worried. As it is not, all is fine.

We'll move on when we're good and ready thanks.

The other important point about that is that the bulk (2/3) of the resource is in a much higher confidence category (indicated). So, there is a good deal of confidence about the bulk of the copper at 0.6% and less confidence about size and particularly grade of the much less important peripheral copper.

Jerry, it's even better than that. As there is 2.05Bt in the indicated category as opposed to 900Mt inferred, so the "overall"/average/mean grade (at 0.2% cuttoff) is 0.52%.

If you cut out the contributing copper in the 0.2-0.3% range then the overall/average/mean grade for the resource simply has to be (basic maths) higher than 0.52%.

Deary me, there is no hope:

"Only the 'overall resource grade' as measured by cu eq cut off grade."

Backpeddle, change topics...yes Filthy you are RIGHT - all is again well in your world.

No Quady, this is not a case of wording. This is an outright, massive error (confusing cuttoff with average grade) by FR, compounded by him repeating it several times, digging himself into a hole and still having the arrogance to insist that he is right.

Quady, at 0.3% cuttoff the average grade, by very definition, is going to be higher than at 0.2% cuttoff. Yes, that particular statistic wasn't published, but perhaps it didn't need to be.

FR, you credibility is in tatters frankly. I refer to your 16:28 post from yesterday (you also stated the same earlier in the day):

"Yes we have more but our overall grade is 0.3"

FR - once again not correct! They did report at 0.3% cuttoff (that's cuttoff mind, not average grade). Just have a read further down the RNS - a 77% increase.

Take 10 minutes and have a good slow read of the whole RNS while you're there. Apology in a Xmas card will be just fine.

Yes it's quite clear that FR has read the cut-off grade (he even said it himself as a supporting argument, if you can believe it), and the average grade.

They did report the resource at 0.3% cuttoff as well. It was a 77% increase (as opposed to 108% at 0.2). You'll see it there, further down in the RNS.

FR, nevermind this or that interview, this or that presentation. Let's go to the REGULATED NEWS out only 3 weeks ago! Your arrogance in the face of stone-cold FACTS is breathtaking - quite astounding. Take a breath and read this again:

"2,050 Mt @ 0.60% CuEq (at 0.2% CuEq cut-off) in the Indicated category

900 Mt @ 0.35% CuEq (at 0.2% CuEq cut-off) in the Inferred category."

Wow FR, you really cannot read can you. Are you saying that they have made a mistake in the headline of the MRE2 RNS?

You should get in touch with SOLG straight away and let them know.

Nevermind this or that presentation. The MRE2 RNS states the following - it's really that straightforward:

"2,050 Mt @ 0.60% CuEq (at 0.2% CuEq cut-off) in the Indicated category

900 Mt @ 0.35% CuEq (at 0.2% CuEq cut-off) in the Inferred category."

Just admit that you were wrong!

The average grade at Alpala is NOT 0.3%. I sincerely hope that you can see that if you have another look at the RNS. If you can't see that then I would recommend that you don't invest in mining companies based on fundamentals!

I've been sharing all day. The answers to all of your questions are within the discussion thread today.

FR, think you need to go to source rather than basing your info on the size and position of a circle on a SOLG presentation. Not the first time a SOLG presentation has got it's numbers in a twist or not been updated.

I think you need to spend a bit more time reading about QB2 - "Our envisaged production output peaks at half of theirs" Not the case.

"I don't think we have twice as much overall resource either but our grade is less than half". You're right, Alpala is MORE than double QB2 and it's still growing!

Alpala's overall grade is NOT 0.3!

Monte, you'll have to root through some of the presentations on the Teck website.