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: stuffbug who wrote (2095)	7/17/2015 9:04:30 PM
From: pop123	2 Recommendations Recommended By Packfan1941 Siegfried Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22811

sounds like they do not want to see any NR with pricing letters outside of a PEA no matter what. the two other phrases should not be used as they have a very different meaning in many other industries. if they approve of pricing letters it really opens the door for manipulation by people. an owner of one company could provide a letter with no real commitment to a mining company and noone could really prove the letter was in good faith as there is no context to the letter. I could see a front line person seeing this as no big deal and then a more experience person being very disturbed by what it means since it is all done in good faith they would not need a punishment .a retraction would be a punishment. FWIW

To: stuffbug who wrote (2095)	7/17/2015 9:06:12 PM
From: NuclearCrystals	3 Recommendations Recommended By hoov stuffbug youngun Respond to of 22811

I too am interested in the mechanics behind the regulator confusion relating to materiality of a graphite specific price quote with corresponding market depth for a specific high purity graphite sector. The price quote was not called into question nor was the market depth information. The issue arose in the terminology that is used as a matter of course in the industry but not recognized by the regulators within 43-101 framing and secondly that the pricing in itself is an economic assessment which by definition must be presented in a PEA format where all economic variables are presented together in order to properly weight the pricing. In isolation, pricing may look to be extremely favourable when that might only hold true if costs were also favourable, lacking the costs variable, price quotes would be restricted to the PEA format. OK, we can all get that but as evidenced in the Albany PEA, it was certainly a reasonable decision about materiality of the price letter considering others quote prices without all costs being framed …….. i.e. Albany LIB pricing. Zenyatta has a problem now …………. as clearly the regulator clarification applies to the Albany pricing table as well. Zenyatta announced on Feb.12 that they had to shape and coat the graphite in order to be tested for LIB while the PEA does not provide any cost metrics for shaping and coating the graphite in order to secure the pricing they list for LIB. One might suggest that uncoated Albany graphite can command the prices that are quoted, however, due to the earlier disclosure of the Albany graphite requiring shaping and coating in order to achieve the required performance characteristics for LIB, and it seems very clear that the prices that are quoted in the PEA are in combination for materials that meet those performance characteristic test, hence, shaped and coated averaged with uncoated material for the primary battery market (?) ………….. $12,000 is a very suspect number for Albany graphite. Since the PEA only includes processing to the point of requiring shaping and coating, the actual price point might be very close to the $4,000 level rather than the $12,000 average being used and that would skew the numbers greatly, requiring a complete restatement of the PEA in my opinion. Either that or the PEA would require restatement with all costs associated to shaping and coating being included in order that the pricing table be properly reflective with regards to LIB pricing. Adding that CAPEX, OPEX to the economic assessment would surely skew the current numbers greatly.

To: stuffbug who wrote (2095)	7/18/2015 1:31:56 PM
From: Packfan1941	3 Recommendations Recommended By Darby hoov techsupport Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22811

Stuffbag, and by extension Hoov, I see your point. It did create a quandary in respect to their obligation to release information deemed material. I accept the explanation. Nice to see it was presented without the need to denigrate Zen in the process. You also pose very relevant questions for what actions should be taken going forward, however they will probably be dealt with by submitting to IROC in advance and now that this has happened will get a pass from them on disclosing it. Process refinement in action.