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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : CCB vs ZEN truth board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jayfish who wrote (3482)	1/26/2016 12:11:39 AM
From: LearntoTrade	Respond to of 12350

Yes, I just noticed my error. They are on the alphabetical list as NI 43-101, which you all know. Now read the info below the list, and worth a read of all of it. Just break it down step by step. It may shed some light on things and give you a clearer picture, so to speak. There is a new list out now. Updated as of SEPT 22, 2015. Cheers

To: Jayfish who wrote (3482)	1/26/2016 12:32:30 AM
From: LearntoTrade	Respond to of 12350

Jayfish, I honestly think they should proceed with full scale pilot plant. Get the data. Pause and think about that for a moment. It may be a case a slightly different area will yield better in situ results after flotation. And why not bulk sample the west pipe? As it stands, the energy input if using thermal could be as much as CCB's because you are starting out with lower purity. I'll see if I have time to make an excel sheet with simple calculus formulas explained to show you the temperatures involved, time to get to required temperature, duration of high temp exposure and the electrical VA required to achieve this. Ontario electrical KWh is higher than Quebec. It's such a shame the fund guys are dry. No one will step up. Big many wants the much of the risk taken out before they'll invest. The failed retail PP for zen it but one example. No funds would step up @ 1.25. They did their homework. Fact is, there could be more there if they do the due process. Finish the job. You have a resource, but now what, when you can't supportively qualify it in characteristics at all mesh size. The economics might see a substantial 'upgrade' from this? Or they know already, hence the continual 'test the same sample set'. Truth is, there are numerous producers whose graphite processes to meet ballard. Perhaps ZENS little sample proved a 'better match' for their specific application, but it is as yet, just a small sample. ZEN knew what to give out. The big deal you seek has a large team of Masters, PhD's and Dr. and analyst etc. They are highly educated in their field and can read between the cracks in public NR's that are craftily worded for maximum focus and effect. So like the list of 20 items, you might remember the first and last items but just glance thru the list, remembering only 2 or 3 more items. You get the point. Sometimes they push the boundaries of what they claim or suggest. Same is true of CCB with indicative pricing. And, until the real results come out, CCB is essentially undocumented and non compliant as far as a resource. Though there is past data that can be reviewed. All we suspect is the results will come out this quarter. If favorable for their intended market, it should be a sweet run, especialy considering the crap work of pilot, flow sheet et al has been successfully executed.