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: SteauaOilers who wrote (2034)	7/16/2015 11:34:11 PM
From: Packfan1941	2 Recommendations Recommended By cbs12311 paulbert Respond to of 22811

You answer your own question. Zenyatta had a resource estimate file under Instrument 43-101, an official filing complying with the standards that were required with legal filing of that RE. Therefore they were subject to all the requirements associated with that instrument, which obviously were followed. I don't remember any objection from any regulatory body, do you? CCB, on the other hand has no official resource. Don't you think its reasonable on IROC's part to ask to define a resource before you fuel speculation by pricing it, leaving everyone to guess what it could POSSIBLY be worth. Give your head a shake, CCB doesn't have a resource estimate. The venture is in its current state of lack of credibility because of estimates of values based on someone wanting to give the price a bump and find ways around the rules. That's why a regulatory body. Its amateur hour when you brag about unofficially having 0 RE and turning around and saying you have client pricing at 12-15 k a ton. I don't know who " you guys " are that you refer to, I think for myself, but there nothing hypocritical about following the rules. This is sour grapes because CCB was doing something it shouldn't be, and was publicly called out. You know, like I'm doing with you.

To: SteauaOilers who wrote (2034)	7/17/2015 8:00:53 AM
From: SteauaOilers	1 Recommendation Recommended By techsupport Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22811

Sorry Packman, you didn't even attempt to answer my question. You did write 2-3 paragraphs in your post, but it has nothing to do with the question. You pride yourself in thinking independently, so let us try again. The clarification from CCB states: "The terms "indicative pricing" and "real-time pricing" are neither industry standard nor defined terms in legislation. No spot price exists for graphite at any purity level. In addition, no mining study at any confidence level has been completed to establish costs of production, capital costs and other important economic considerations. To avoid any misinterpretation as to the value of graphite mineralization that may be hosted on the company's mineral property, all future graphite pricing information will be limited to disclosure within the Preliminary Economic Assessment." In their NR from December 2013, ZEN states: "Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term price of US$8,500 per tonne Cg, and a US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.0." The only difference I see is ZEN is using the term "long-term price", while CCB used "indicative pricing" and "real-time pricing". As an independent thinker, can you point us to anywhere in ZEN releases (on or before December 2013) where they avoid any misrepresentation as to the value of graphite mineralization by providing information related to cost of production, capital costs and other important economic consideration?