It would appear that Hoov decided to respond to your questions on another board.
Here is his full response:
This was posted on another board. I hope that someone will copy my reply back over there. I've italicized Myfreedom's oriiginal words, to clearly diferentiate them from my comments.
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?
Your remarks here are completely without foundation. NI 43-101 not only requires cautionary statements, it requires that they are of equal prominence to the information which is the subject of the caution. Right beneath the section entitled "Project Economics" is a section entitled "Cautionary Notes", which itself is immediately above the Qualified Persons' certifications.
At the bottom of the press release, you will find the requisite cautionary language about forward-looking statements.
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..
A PEA level economic assessment requires resources. Period. Full stop. It is a preliminary report. The only thing that could possibly explain your remark, in my opinion, is that you rely far too much on PEA-level Technical Reports for your investment decisions. A PFS-level economic assessment is already approximately half completed, as reported on March 7. When completed, the PEA will be completely surperseded by the higher level report. A PEA is nothing more than a stepping stone.
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,
Time-out. How big are your football fields? The calculation requires three simple steps. A: Type "0.22 sq km in sq yards" into the Google search window. Boom, you have your answer. B: Calculate the area of a CFL football field. That should be easy-peasy. C: Divide the answer from A by the answer from B.
You'll find that 0.22 sq km is 27 regulation CFL football fields, including those huge endzones.
and given they have been working on this for years,
No, the 700 m long conductor that includes the greenfields discovery of VN6 was made in late summer of 2014. In less than 18 months, CCB has done all of the required drilling, and completed two resource estimates, and a PEA.
why is it that:
a) The still have no indicated resource - just 100% inferred?
It wasn't necessary for a PEA.
b) There are no drill results?
There are numerous press releases that address that concern. The drill results are in the resource estimate.
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?
What an absurd set of remarks. The cautionary statements make clear that there is no assurance that the marble or graphite economic projections will be met. (Read the cautionary language again.) CCB released a press release about the signing of a marble contract. The potential buyer's name is of no consequence. Chief's admission? Eh? I can show you active quarries drilling vertical fences to separate blocks from the bedrock. Do you think that the local tool rental centre has a marble saw in the back room, hoping that someone will rent it, one day? You make do with what you've got. Duh.
4. Why are the claimed cut-off grades to get even inferred resources so low compared to competitors?
The obvious answer is that the Miller Project's economics work out fine, at that cut-off grade. The economics of other projects have no bearing whatsoever.
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?
I have no idea even trying to say here: "three times those provided in its PEA". Wait for the final report, and you'll see what's included in that cost. You shouldn't be jumping to conclusions based on press releases. The big boys don't.
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?
Here's the central thesis of your distress. CCB obtained independent third-party pricing. The only issue IIROC had was with phrasing. You'll note that both press releases, the original and the clarification version, contained the same value: $12,000 to $14,000 USD per tonne.
Remember this comment, earlier? 'The only thing that could possibly explain your remark, in my opinion, is that you rely far too much on PEA-level Technical Reports for your investment decisions.'
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?
Refer to my remarks, above, once more. There isn't a mining project in the world that doesn't use a rolling resource concept during production.....except if the mineralized zone is totally surrounded in three dimensions by waste rock. Even then, exploration would almost certainly continue, in order wring every last penny of value out of the sunk capital for the mining and milling equipment. A certain diamond miner over near Attawapiskat might give you a clue.
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?
Whatever. Do your criticize Glorieux? Zengold? Mona?
Lar
|
