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: GMPInvestor who wrote (4954)	3/13/2016 11:50:46 AM
From: GrumpyGus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12350

What have you been saying all along GMP? 1) CCB is down 40%. I'd love to hear how you got that. Oh wait, Glorieux posted that number on the other board. You copied it. Well, using numbers provided by Glorieux is suspect , as he seems to have had some issues regarding numerical accuracies of late. 2) CCB would need 83 times as much graphite to get the same result as ZEN through thermal upgrading. That one wasn't even close. 83 times more waste was needed to be removed/ton. Oh wait, but that was using CCB's flotation product vs ZEN's purified product, not a fair comparison at all. CCB used a complete range of all its material, right down to .53%, and resulted in a flotation grade of ~95%, a number that was needlessly low because it included the material that gave 90% float rate, and that material would make up relatively little of the product being thermally treated. The ZEN material, on the other hand, was already run through their NaOH bake and acid rinse, to get to 99.94%, and which came from their primo 5% graphite drill core. If CCB went from its NaOH process, it gets to 99.98 on a standard SGS run. So if you started from the same product, CCB is better. In addition, Mongo says that the removal of all that CCB contamination would be environmentally yucky (my word). Well, ZEN has to use a ton of acid and base to get to 99.4%, while CCB uses a standard SGS run, using much less material, to get a higher purity. Again, while CCB isn't touting itself as being super green, it is, in fact, greener than ZEN from this comparison. If you read the post that supplies these numbers, you might get the impression Chahar had told Mongo this. But I suspect Mongo produced that little tidbit on his own, because I don't think anyone with ZEN would stoop to such a faulty comparison. Message 30491051 3) CCB has had "lots" of news releases retracted. That had been discussed many times, and you should have known that wasn't true. Oh wait, as soon it was pointed out to you that it was only 1, you immediately answered back that it was 2. It was actually one news release and one website correction, but definitely not lots. The fact you immediately came back with the number 2 says to me that you knew all along it was not lots, but chose to say that to damn CCB further, regardless of facts. I really believe you are smarter than you choose to appear in your posts, and are using this "naïve bumpkin" approach to allow you to get away with some atrocious misrepresentations of the facts. It doesn't serve you well.