CCB vs ZEN truth board Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : CCB vs ZEN truth board

ZEN.V 1.120

0.0%

Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: cdellis01 who wrote (10531)	2/14/2017 12:45:29 PM
From: Heres30	of 12350

CCB has many problems. One of the major issues with the Miller site is this: "One hundred percent of the assays are overestimated by an average of 26%" The following segment is taken from the CCB Sedar Tech report pages 128-129. "The GGC-09 standard was inserted a total of 20 times in the sample stream. None of the results from this standard are outside the warning and fail QA/QC performance gates (Figure 11-3). However, a bias is observed in the results from GGC-09 standard. The mean value of the assay result is 2.74% graphitic carbon, with a standard deviation of 0.03, which is 12% higher than the expected value. This difference in results and expected value could be due to the different assaying method used in standard certification (leaching) and Canada Carbon’s assays (multi-stage furnace). _____________________________________________________________________________________________ SGS Canada Inc. Standard GCC-08 was assayed 58 times and again no QA/QC failures are observed (Figure 11-3). However, a bias is observed in the values; where the mean value of the assays is 0.44% graphitic carbon for an expected value 0f 0.39% graphitic carbon. One hundred percent of the assays are overestimated by an average of 26% (Figure 11-3). For example, in the GGC-09 standard, this bias could be due the different assay methods. And from page 129 this appears. Another Red Flag. "In SGS’s opinion, the Project will benefit from more QA/QC samples included in the sample stream. The biases caused by possible assay method differences between standard certification and Canada Carbon assays should be investigated and corrected. 19% overestimation of graphite grade could prove problematic especially for samples close to the economic cut-off grades." The

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next