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 : Canada Carbon CCB-V -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: naimarantz who wrote (1225)	2/15/2016 9:59:29 PM
From: LearntoTrade	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1871

It is a shame the trenching does not count for the 43-101 resource.

To: naimarantz who wrote (1225)

2/16/2016 8:03:05 PM

From: naimarantz

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
hoperrs

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1871

LearntoTrade, I know that my explanation is correct and I replied to your false assertion as politely as I could. As you are a newbie I would suggest in the future you do your DD before discounting facts that are pivotal to the conversation.

To: LearntoTrade who wrote (1226)	2/16/2016 10:27:44 AM
From: naimarantz	1 RecommendationRecommended By hoperrs Read Replies (1) of 1232

LearntoTrade, are you sure trenching cannot be used in a 43-101 resource estimate? I understand that trenching, cross cutting and drilling can be used in 43-101 calculations. Logically speaking if you miss with a drill then crosscut and find the vein, measure the cut width and depth of the vein and send a representative sample into the lab it seems you have better results than a drill passing though the same area. Trenching would give you measurements and samples of the vein in all directions and would only be limited by depth and machine capability. I understand that trenching and crosscutting will contribute significantly to CCB's 43-101 resource estimate and believe it was a good strategic move by management to switch to focusing more heavily on those results while limiting the hit and miss with the drill.

To: naimarantz who wrote (1225)	2/15/2016 9:59:29 PM
From: LearntoTrade	Read Replies (1) of 1232

It is a shame the trenching does not count for the 43-101 resource. Message #1225 from naimarantz at 2/15/2016 9:20:17 PM As far as drill duds go there is no doubt there were duds like any drilling operation will have. My understanding is because specific holes with visible graphite could not be quantified with the positions of other graphitic holes and the holes that missed the veins (duds) a news release on the visible graphitic cores would not create any material value as even the geologists were trying to piece together what they were finding. In retrospect it was the right thing to do as no money was spent preparing news and all it would have served to do is give a piece meal idea at best of a vein system they knew too little about to properly quantify at the time. So no real usable material information could be determined until they had most the holes along with significant trenching to track the vein's positions to help fill in the gaps. CCB is very fortunate the veins are at surface and trenching was a viable option because if the deposit had been below overburden they would have had to rely solely on the drills and they would be a lot farther behind than where they are now. As time moved on they ended up retesting cores to the tune of 5 separate times at least as they progressively realized the profitable cut of point percentage was dropping lower and lower as other factors came into play like the marble off take agreement, the cement company's interest in the marble tailings from the disseminated graphite and the local quarry's interest in the broken marble. So with this progressive incoming information they had to reassess much of the original information and got a much clearer picture of the profitable resource on an expanding scale as time went on. Considering they were developing a PEA most the while this was underway underscores how important it was to prioritize the complete quantification of the information for the PEA and the 43-101 resource. Releasing news of only part of a picture that is unquantifiable would have only served to be a waste of money and time and been misunderstood by a market that has shown to understand little about important graphite nuances. I believe CCB management made the right decision by not putting out incomplete core data that they couldn't properly quantify themselves to an audience that understood it even less.