I see I have been banned from the Canada Carbon CCB board - what a surprise. I just went on for first time in nearly a week and noticed the subjects were all over the place and did not really deal with the issues CCB needs to address. Was going to try to bring it back on track, but cannot do it there but will do it here.
1. Under the second element of the definition, a PEA is a conceptual study of the potential viability of mineral resources. In this context, section 3.4(e) of NI 43-101 requires specific cautionary language indicating that the economic viability of the mineral resources has not been demonstrated. This cautionary language is in addition to the cautionary statement for inferred mineral resources required by section 2.3(3)(a). Any disclosure that implies the PEA has demonstrated economic or technical viability would be contrary to NI 43-101 and the definition of PEA.
So why does the CCB PEA NR have no cautionary statements until the usual disclaimer at the very end of what is a glowing narrative that, to a totally green investor, might be taken to mean CCB has all the things it states, and will be definitely going into production and making money soon?
2. How can CCB issue a PEA with no defined resource? There is a reason no one does PEAs with 100% inferred - to protect investors..
3. With all the money CCB says it has, and given the fact that it has focused on just .22 sq, km - barely a football field, and given they have been working on this for years, why is it that:
a) The still have no indicated resource - just 100% inferred?
b) There are no drill results?
c) This graphite company spends more time talking about how marble will make this project, but does not explain why this is assured, given that there is no shortage of marble, no indication other than the PEA's own assertion that anyone wants it - an unnamed buyer; and according to chief's own admission, they never even bothered to rent a saw to prove that their marble was easy to cut and remove - photos show it was drilled out?
4. Why are the claimed cut-off grades to get even inferred resources so low compared to competitors?
5. Why are the cited production costs, even it the project were to proceed - as high as for synthetic; and three times those provided in its PEA?
6 Is it just coincidence that the much higher selling price stated, but not backed up, allows CBC to infer that its profit would be similar to, or a little better, the one indicated in Zen's PEA, which does have a huge indicated resource and extremely low costs and excellent profit margin, and bases its statements on what most agree is a very conservative and cautious price?
7. Does the company really think investors and clients will be more attracted to a company that says trust us, we have a rolling resource plan and will find enough each year to sell you what you need, rather than to a company with a proven resource, extremely low production cost and excellent profit margin - all based on a very conservative and cautious approach?
8. What can be inferred from the fact that a shareholder who has boasted how many shares he and members of his small group on TCC have, constantly posts as fact - not opinion - claims, statements and "information" that the company itself has not released?
Seems certain other boards would rather throw out distracting chaff to avoid answering these questions. And they wonder why the SP has crashed since the PEA came out. |
