Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Zenyatta Free Speech Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GMPInvestor who wrote (1303)	6/21/2015 12:19:18 PM
From: the Chief	4 Recommendations Recommended By Darby stuffbug techsupport Terry Maloney Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22811

So what you are saying is, everything you saw in the PEA NR you believe its face value and have no questions whatsoever is that correct?

To: GMPInvestor who wrote (1303)	6/21/2015 12:25:02 PM
From: NuclearCrystals	1 Recommendation Recommended By stuffbug Respond to of 22811

GMP, the recovery numbers are not conservative as you suggest. The recovery numbers are derived directly from the trials that were undertaken. When the resource report was written, various trials had not been run (pilot plant flotation) and the bench scale purification had not been optimized to the current point of having an 86% reduction in NAOH charge, therefore, the recovery reported at that time was a very loose assumption. The PEA recoveries as indicated in the PEA summary are extrapolated from the most current trial results (actual recoveries), therefore, to suggest RPA was being conservative is a fallacy. Can those reveries be improved? Possibly or possibly not, those are the real unknowns but the numbers as they stand today are hard data derived from the most recent trials, not assumptions. In fact, there is a high possibility that recoveries and purity get worse once pilot plant level trials on NAOH purification and shaping and coating take place.

To: GMPInvestor who wrote (1303)	6/21/2015 3:46:40 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22811

"you are referring to variables/catastrophic events that cannot exist". And yet, time after time after time... exactly those variables/catastrophic events... are proven perfectly capable of existing... and successfully parting investors from their cash... "In fact, and please don't take this the wrong way, what you are saying doesn't make any sense. If what he said didn't make sense... it is only due to your limited ability to make sense of things he understands that you do not... "PEA numbers were reported and due to the fact the company that did the report (RPA) is know to be conservative these cost/selling numbers will only get BETTER not worse as the project progresses." That almost NEVER happens... and it is obvious why that is true... as a shallow look at anything is less revealing than a far more careful look. You don't see all the problems in a quick look... that will become apparent when you look carefully. What you see in others posting here... is the voice of those with far more experience showing you the opinions of those who know well enough to look more carefully... and not be lured by the posturing of those intending to pitch the first impressions than your broker wants you to buy. "You can't post fake numbers on News Releases"... Actually, you can... It's done all the time. "so I'm not sure where you are getting that info but it is FALSE I am 100% sure". Ah... music to your brokers ears... yet another clueless fool too ignorant to be aware of the depth of his foolishness. "Let me ask you this question do you own a large or small chunk of Zen?" Why do you care what other people own ? It has ZERO impact on the validity of your choices... "When the PEA is reported to sedar ( is that correct ) and the project advances to PFS and Full Feasiblily look for those numbers to improve". LOL!!! Yes... the numbers will improve... in terms of becoming increasingly accurate, and vastly less bogus...