Sunrise Energy Metals Ltd SREMF

Metals & Mining Industrial Metals & Minerals

Sunrise Energy Metals Limited is an Australia-based company engaged in the development of its Sunrise Battery Materials Complex (Sunrise Project) in New South Wales (NSW). The Sunrise Project is a supplier of battery raw materials and aluminum-scandium alloys. It is utilizing its Clean-iX resin technology for extraction and purification of a range of metals and progressing exploration activities at its other mineral tenements. Its Clean-iX Continuous Resin-In-Column is a continuous counter-current process that extracts metals from clarified leach solutions. Its Clean-iX Continuous Resin-In-Pulp is a continuous countercurrent process that directly extracts metals from leached pulps. It is advancing activities across its range of exploration assets in NSW. Its limestone exploration includes Hunters (EL9627), EL8883 Meloola and EL8833 Boona Gap, Gleninga South (EL9598) and Gleninga (EL8882). It also focused on rare earth elements exploration, which includes Minore (EL9031 and EL8961).

OTCQX:SREMF - Post by User

Sunrise Energy Metals Ltd

Bullboard Posts

Comment by ReindeerBreathon Jun 16, 2014 12:53pm

113 Views

Post# 22663641

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Demand

Thank god you're stuck in hillbilly heaven. Wikipedia is banned from us in most academic environments...but what would you know about that with your 8th grade education. (From Wikipedia...LOL) Academia Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence or credentials in the topic.[55][56] Adrian Riskin, a mathematician in Whittier College commented that while highly technical articles may be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, the more general maths topics, such as the article on polynomials are written in a very amateurish fashion with a number of obvious mistakes.[57] Because Wikipedia can not be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.[55][58][59] The criticism of not being a reliable source, however, may not only apply to Wikipedia but to encyclopedias in general – some university lecturers are not impressed when students cite print-based encyclopedias in assigned work.[60] An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a Nottingham University Business School lecturer in Information Systems,[61] the subject of a review on the technical website Ars Technica,[62] involving 55 academics asked to review specific Wikipedia articles that either were in their expert field (group 1) or chosen at random (group 2), concluded that "The experts found Wikipedia's articles to be more credible than the non–experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes (10% of the experts reported factual errors of an unspecified degree, 3% of them reported spelling errors)."[63]

Bullboard Posts

Mid-year update: Charting GameSquare’s sharp business growth