RE:Fact chzecher wrong againRockbolter wrote: Future Work The PFS recommended the completion of a feasibility study to validate and detail the elements of the development concept set out in the PFS, and which would include additional drilling, stripping, engineering studies and environmental studies, including hydrological, hydrogeological and geotechnical analyses.
This is Larry.
I am not FactCzecher, or whatever the spelling is. I do not post on SI. I do not post on SH, except this once. I wish you all just get over me. I must have profoundly messed with your heads, for you still to see me behind every intelligent post you encounter.
I used to try to provide good evidence for you to consider, in contrast the the misleading posts of others, particularly Glorieux and muskavite, but all I got in reponse was abuse. In a moment of clarity, I realized that I like it better if you are wrong, and that doesn't cost me any effort at all.
I didn't mark it on my calendar, but it's probably been years since I commented on ZEN.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are similarities in posting styles between myself and FC. We're both good with grammar and syntax. We have broad vocabularies, and we both present logical arguments based on evidence. But you're not looking at the differences between us.
I focus on scientific and technical subjects. I don't have either the time or inclination to look up what someone posted three years ago. For the same reasons, I don't care what I said three years ago, either. Things change. New evidence comes in. If you want to know what I think today, ask me today. What I thought three years ago was in a different context, and has no current relevance.
Now, as to rockhead's quote above, he clearly doesn't understand English syntax. When a sentence contains the sequence 'adjective (list)', the adjective modifies all members of the list. So, the relevant phrase should be understood to mean, " additional drilling, additional stripping, additional engineering studies and additional environmental studies...". Let's not forget, rockhead, this is your example, which you completely misunderstood. FC was not wrong, you were. I would have called your blunder 'specious', but the circumstances are actually a paralogism. I'll leave that for you to figure out.
FC was quite correct to state that environmental factors must be part of a PFS. Just going from memory, the PEA had only a desktop study, and one AMD assessment. They're going to need a lot more than that for a PFS.
I'm not going to do any work for you. Here's a list of links to relevant information:
https://dmtgeosciences.ca/images/uploads/original/industrialmin.pdf
https://web.cim.org/UserFiles/File/Estimation-Mineral-Resources-Mineral-Reserves-11-23-2003.pdf
https://web.cim.org/UserFiles/File/CIM-CSA-2015-Price-Recommendations-Nov-28-2015.pdf
https://www.cmpsoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CIM_Best_Practice_Guidelines_for_Mineral_Processing_Rev_F.pdf
https://web.cim.org/standards/MenuPage.cfm?sections=177&menu=178
Somewhere in there, you will find these nuggets:
"Where non-commercialized technology is being used within the process plant definition, it is necessary to provide proof of concept at the preliminary economic assessment (scoping study) level, proof of economic and technical viability at the prefeasibility level, and proof of applicability at the feasibility level. The NI 43-101 Technical Report should clearly inform the reader of the risks associated with any of the considered technologies and in particular with those technologies that are not proven."
"It is expected that the process design will not only take into account economic factors but will also address worker health and safety in the process facilities to an appropriate level. The design must also reasonably deal with the production of any odious and toxic emissions produced by the process facilities. The QP in process will also be involved in the characterization of the process tailings being disposed. At early stages of property work, the QP may provide some guidance as to the appropriate disposal of tailings, however as the level of reserve category is increased the level of work involved in the disposal of wastes, tailings and control of emissions will increase. It is expected that at a minimum, experts will be involved in the prefeasibility study and at the feasibility study and operations level, there will be a suitably qualified QP specifically guiding environmental issues."
"The QP should be aware that test results for industrial minerals, especially those related to the results of beneficiation tests, could be subject to significant scaleup effects. The QP should ensure that laboratory test procedures adequately duplicate the proposed production process. In many cases, bulk samples as large as 500 tonnes may be required."
Now, as to whether ZEN can fund mining by selling graphene, this is taken from Ontario's Mining Act. There are opportunities to seek the Minister's approval to step outside of these rules, but that would be an exceptional case, literally.
"Rights in claim
50. (1) The staking or the filing of an application for or the recording of a mining claim, or the acquisition of any right or interest in a mining claim by any person or all or any of such acts, does not confer upon that person,
(b) any right to take, remove or otherwise dispose of any minerals found in, upon or under the mining claim.
Permission to test mineral content
52 (1) No person shall mine, mill or refine more than the prescribed quantity of mineral bearing substance from an unpatented mining claim for the purpose of testing mineral content without first obtaining the Minister’s written permission.
Sale of end product
(3) The end product of mining, milling and refining permitted under subsection (1), except as provided in subsection (4), shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of until the mining claim from which the minerals were taken is leased under this Act."
The minerals in the ground belong to the Crown, not ZEN.
Now, back for a moment with environmental assessment. Your own example, rockhead, refers to a mining company that completed their baseline environmental studies, and received federal and provincial feedback on same YEARS BEFORE they went forward with a PFS. As you could have found quickly from reviewing the website, the environmental assessment process is polyfactorial and ongoing. https://www.iamgold.com/English/operations/development-projects/cote-gold-project-ontario/default.aspx
If you're going to try to debate a subject, do some basic research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt. You know what I'm referring to.
If you want to find me, I post on Agoracom occasionally. Otherwise, the only time I read these boards is for a laugh. FC's lists of Dubeisms is hilarious. His recent posts had me rolling on the floor, because he hasn't learned a thing about graphite yet. Musky is just a laugh, period.
Oh, and Chen uses HF.
Lar