Follow up with JSL second try I also was able to speak to JSL this week, along with other people that I spoke with. I guess it was his week for returning phone calls. I took some time to share my conversation because I needed to digest everything. I don’t like being negative and I don’t want to bash on the company. But it doesn’t mean I’m not frustrated. Having talked to some of the poster here and after reading many posts recently I know I’m not the only one really disappointed by the situation. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 negative effect, it goes way before that in my humble opinion. I have been here holding my shares and accumulating over the past 10 years. I have not sold a single shares so far. Big mistake some will say and I must say that the present situation proves you right!!!! Me too Jade2 the "any day now" have kept me here. I trusted this company for a long time, mainly because of the quality of the board that we have, Haber and Brune particularly. I have assisted most of the AGM in the past years. My last meeting with JSL, that I went to with other members last October and for witch we did a resume really had me thinking that for once we were really knocking at the door. That all the magic could come together before Christmas or very close to it. Words, only words once more... Even though I’m grateful to have received a call back this week, I must say that I have been trying to reach JSL since January 2020 at many different occasions but I only got a call back this week. That for a start had me frustrated, especially because nothing seem to have progress since then. If there is one thing that displeases me so bad with this company it’s the eternal lack of news or the lack of follow up as small as it could be. Deadline keeps on getting missed one after the other and we rarely have news or explanation whatsoever. If none of us take the time to call and ask questions to JSL, we remain in the no news land, all asking our self what is happening with the company. I had and I know others also had the occasion to express that dislike to JSL in many occasions. He always seems to say that he will take it in consideration, but in the end unfortunately not much is changing. I hope one day they will make a better effort. I sincerely appreciated the last letter to the investors that many of us received, nonetheless at this point what I really would like is results. It is true that every time I have the chance to talk to JSL he sounds up beat, everything seems to be rolling in the right direction and he acts like he cares about the shareholders. Unfortunately I no longer know what to think of his optimism that concretely doesn’t translate in results enough in my liking. All that is not that important, I know, it’s just me ventilating because I’m so frustrated by the situation we are in. ( I’m not talking about the COVID, for me things should have happened way before COVID even came to be.) Enough of that, lets focus on the resume of my talk with JSL, because there is some positive nonetheless, at lease in words, it remain to be seen if it will materialize for once... Many questions have already been covert by Crazy_Nick and I thank you very much for your update. I’ll try to complement it with other part that I have discussed with JSL. I would aslo like to thank many of you for keeping the board alive in those very harsh time, stock wise and all the rest. I say it every time, but here again, this is an amazing Board!!!!! Thank you all!!!! 1- permits I first talk about the permits situation with JSL. Before our conversation, I had read the entire documents from Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. I know that for the last report on March 27 some believed there was no English version, I didn’t notice it when it first came out, but it is there. I know it has been posted by other people before, but here is the link once more, just in case some of you would be interested to read it and didn’t find it. https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/exploration?projDocs=80005 I decided to read them, because to me it is just unbelivable that we are still here waiting for the permits at this time. I agree with Tinker, that many questions seem BS to me, it also looks like their is some redundancy and it makes us wonder if someone at the government has something against us. But on the other hand, if I refer to what CEAA says, CRE also seem to have answered poorly, in many places with many details missing. I’m no professional in the matter, maybe someone with a better background could tell us if this situation is normal or if some aspect could become a problem. Nonetheless, It still appears to me that the job on CRE side as not being done top notch on every aspects and it gets me wonder if it is part of the reason for why it takes so long. Maybe without justified reason, but it frustrate me when I see what seem to be poor quality answers in some places, espacially because they seem to have been working on it for so long now !!!! From the report of CEAA on March 27 2020. For example, on page 27 CEAA says this: ‘’The documents already provided by the proponent (references indicated above) contain several elements of the Water Management Plan. However, essential information is missing to assess the short- and long term effects of the mining project on surface water, groundwater and related environmental components. The proponent is encouraged to refer to the Environmental Code of Practice for Metal Mines (Environment Canada, 2009) for guidance on the management of contaminated water during the construction, operation, closure and post-closure phases. In addition, in question CEAA-30, a note mentions that the proponent was notified in September 2018, during discussions between ECCC and the proponent, that the water pumped from the 9 peripheral wells around the pit is considered mine water effluent within the meaning of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) and must be managed according to the requirements of these same regulations. The proponent did not consider this information in its answers to questions CEAA-18, CEAA-19, CEAA-21, CEAA-24, CEAA-25, CEAA-27 and CEAA-30. The mine site Water Management Plan should take this notice into account by incorporating MMER requirements into the management of all mine water effluents, including water from peripheral pumping. ‘’ On page 64, CEAA mentioned this: ‘’Many gaps were identified by Health Canada in the risk assessment of contamination of traditional foods (response to question CEAA-136, Appendix CEAA-136)....’’ There are also some disagreement between CRE and CEAA concerning the wildlife that will be affected. See page 49 concerning the American Nighthawk and page 51 for the caribous. May be that won’t really matter, I don’t know the importance it has on the final decision. Maybe some one with better knowledge could say. But I still think CRE could have been more thorough in its answer to prevent this inquiry. ‘’...One of the options presented is intended, among other things, to create wetlands that will provide functions similar to those lost and to help restore environments of low ecological value that are currently impacted. . However based on the information presented, it appears that some wetlands that will be lost are of high ecological value, particularly those corresponding to polygons R46 and 379 (see the answer to question QC-68, from the first round of questions submitted by the MELCC). These environments, which are within the footprint of the pit, also appear to be close to the locations where the American Nighthawk, a species at risk, has been identified, if we refer to map QC-86-1. In its response to question CEAA-82, the proponent states that “Among the mitigation measures that will be implemented during the construction phase, the compensation plan for the loss of wetlands will be the most effective at reducing losses of habitat function, especially for migratory birds and other species at risk. ” The proponent uses this argument to assess that the disturbance caused by residual effects on wetlands will be low. However, it provides very little information on the compensation plan and does not demonstrate how this plan will reduce the loss of wetland functions affected by the project, including habitat function.’’ ‘’The proponent states in its response to question 94 c) that the project will have no foreseeable effects on caribou and their habitat during both construction and operation activities. However, ECCC is of the opinion that even after mitigation measures are implemented, the project will have residual effects on the boreal woodland caribou (rangifer tarandus caribou) and its habitat (e.g., disturbance of individuals, loss of habitat, etc.). Consequently, ECCC believes that a detailed assessment of the cumulative effects on this species is required. ‘’ Their are many other examples where there has been mismatch answers or not enough details from CRE according to CEAA, but I didn’t put them all here as I didn’t want to overload this already long resume. It also appear that we will have to go back to the land in order to finish the last round of questions. On page 39
‘’
In its response to question CEAA-14, the proponent indicates that tests on acid generation potential in the overburden are planned for the spring of 2020 and are thus not provided. In Appendix G (Geochemical Characterization, Lamont Inc.) of the concordance information document (WSP, February 2019a), the proponent presents a comprehensive geochemical characterization program for all materials that will be disturbed by mining activities. According to the Manual for Prediction of Drainage Chemistry of Sulphide Geologic Materials (MEND, 2009), all geological materials must be assessed, including non-lithified surficial materials, as well as material in relatively low volumetric proportion that may be responsible for landfill development that could cause significant environmental impacts. Over the life of the mine, 11 megatonnes of overburden will be removed during pit development and stored in a separate stockpile. The proponent states that surface water that comes into contact with mining infrastructure but has no potential for contamination, such as the overburden pit and service road ditches, will not be captured. It added that passive means of controlling suspended solids will be implemented during Joint Assessment Committee (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Cree Nation Government) Information Request No. 2, Part 1 - March 27, 2020 Environmental Assessment of the Rose Lithium-Tantalum Mining Project 40 construction and operation to meet discharge standards for concentrations of suspended solids. However, to date, the proponent has not submitted a geochemical characterization program to support its premise of no adverse effects of the overburden on contact water, other than the risk associated with suspended solids. A thorough assessment of the overburden is required to evaluate its potential for acid mine drainage and leaching to support the current project design and the overburden disposal site water management plan. Lake 1 and Lake 2 will be drained prior to pit mining and lake bottom sediments will be disturbed. The management of these lake sediments has not been described. Lake sediments may contain metals and produce contact water that could cause environmental impacts.’’ All this seems to be related to the same thing. This is part of the document the IAAC submitted on January 6 2020. In the light of those two documents, unless the information is not mendatory, witch it seems to be, I believe CRE knew for a while that they would’t be able to get the permits before at least spring 2020. ‘’
SUBJECT: Rose Lithium-Tantalum mining project – Responses to the June 27, 2019, information request On December 19, 2019, the Joint Assessment Committee (the Committee) received the responses to the June 27, 2019, information request concerning the above-named project. Responses are presented in the following document:’’ on page 6 ‘’To enable the Committee and the experts to continue their analysis of the effects of the overburden on water quality, the preliminary results of the testing for acidgeneration potential planned for spring 2020 must be sent to us as soon as they are available. In its answer to Question ACEE-46 B), the proponent states that the results are provided in the report entitled Caractrisation de l’eau de surface et des sdiments en vue d’tablir l’tat initial du milieu avant l’implantation du projet – Rapport d’activit 2018 et 2019 de septembre 2019 in Annex ACEE-46 [Surface water and sediment characterization to determine the initial environmental condition before the project implementation – Activity report 2018 and 2019, September 2019]. That report does not present the results for all the parameters – including radium, mercury and thallium – that were measured for Watercourse A during the September 2019 spring sampling campaign. The proponent must provide, as soon as possible, the report or reports containing all of the results. The proponent should also explain why it was unable to characterize those three elements during the spring 2019 sampling campaign, even after being informed in May 2019 that it would be asked to do so. ‘’ When ask about those interogations, JSL didn’t entirely answered my questions, but he mentioned that all of this process is very normal, the questions are standard, their is no problem between CRE and the agency. According to him all of this is routine and part of the regular process. He also mentioned that many aspects have already been answered and he doesn’t see any problem whatsoever concerning the wildlife or other inquiries. He said that they are actively working on completing the permit process, that it is their main priority at the moment. They are in the process to get the appropriate people to make the necessary assessment. Everything is a bit more complicated considering the COVID-19 situation, but they are working on it. JSL said that as soon as the restrictions are lifted by the government they will be able to go back to the site and finish what is necessary, get the samples and do the evaluation. The mine companies are allowed to go back to work, but since we are considered an exploration company, we are not allowed to travel to the site at this time. All subject to the COVID-19 evolution, it is very hard to tell, but he estimate that they could be finished with this round of questions in about 1 month from now. They also expect 10 more questions (part 2) in relation to the Autochtone very shortly and he doesn’t expect any complication in that regard. I forgot to ask about the federal and provincial side, but on the overall process, we apparently could potentially have the permits this summer, some portion are out of his control. (hope it is true this time...) 2- Partner As always, he doesn’t say much, he remain very vague in his answer. He said that everything is still proceeding forward. The discussions between them and the potential partner / partners are flowing normally. I asked him if we encounter some problem since we were unable to finalize a deal since Christmas. He couldn't say much, but just reiterated that some aspects take longer, he can’t force the other party / parties to sign. Some aspects are out of his control, but everything that has been discussed remain, it is not lost and the COVID-19 hasn’t affected the negotiations aparently. All the OEM and other companies seem to proceed forward with the electrification plan. Most of the auto makers have already switched their line of productions toward EV, their is no turning back. It is hard to know exactly how the industry will be affected, but on the long run everything should remain as plan. He mentioned that all the penalties concerning the Carbon emissions are still in place, the companies have no choice but to keep heading that way. In his opinion most countries should embrace the switch to electrification at an even faster pace. Important worldwide governmental money stimulus of all sort should come to help in that process. It will be a way to help the economy to get back in shape. (It is inline with many articles that I have seen posted by this board, once again thank you very much for sharing!!!) He said that even if the effect of COVID would retract the Lithium forecast of 2025 from 1million to 800K or even a bit less, the need for many other mines like CRE will be needed. He doesn’t seem to even worry about it. The oversuplly that we keep hearing about is still for the low grade quality lithium, their is apparently no oversuplly for the battery grade. The prices for the battery grade remain in the same range of price and is not affected by the situation. Their might have been some delay with the negotiation, but now many companies in Europe and elsewhere are starting to go back to work, it is only a question of time. Everything seem to be tight up with the permits at this point. He said that we remain on track and that the mine construction could start in the fall this year. (I’ll believe it when I see it, but it is encouraging nonetheless if it is true) 3- Money in the bank He said that we have about 800K-900K $ in the bank, that we can probably last until next February with what is left. He said that they have cut down their expenses to the minimum as they are not interested to dilute the stock at this price. He said that they are only spending on what is absolutely necessary to get us to the mine construction. He said that they have enough to finalize the permits. Following the news release in October concerning the Max price from Primero, I spoke briefly to JSL and he had told me at that time that in order to complete phase 2 (the final price) it would take about 3-4 months once they received the submission from Primero. He didn’t want to get in details about the price of the submission neither where they are at with that process, but he said that at the present time they are not focusing on that. Primero is still with us, but they are not working on phase 2 for the final price at this time. He said that it is not an obligation at this point, what is important is the permits and that is where they put their energy and money. He said that once we have the permits and a partner, the Primero assessment for the final price could come very fast, faster then 3-4 months. 4- Eric Zaunscherb I wanted to know more of the reason for his nomination as an independant director to the board. For those who didn’t know he also joined the Board of GR Silver Mining LTD in April here is the link https://grsilvermining.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/GR-Silver-News-Release-April-16-2020.pdf JSL said that the reputation of Eric is absolutely outstanding worldwide. He will be able to help us with the institutional aspect. His mine expertise in the lithium sector is renowned and he will be able to prevent us from doing many mistake, especially at the begining. The fact that he is part of another board is not a problem as he is not require to work full time with us. As JSL reminded me, Eric is not an employee, he is only part of our board to advise us and help us with his expertise. 5- Haber I asked him if Haber is still with the compagny and why we are not hearing anything from him. JSL said that he is talking to Haber 2-3 times a day, that he is very much implicated with the company, there is no dought about that. He said that he will take in considration and talk with Haber conserning the fact that we would like to have more news or to hear a bit more from him conserning the company or the lithium situation. (Not sure that will happen, but I was at least reasured that he is still with us.) 6- investment from management I ask him if there was a reason why no one from management are supporting the stock by buying at this level. He once more told me that they can’t he doesn’t want to say more. I perosnnaly don’t believe they are in blackout period. To me a blackout periode is suppopse to be when there is imminent news that could have an impact on the company, positive or negative. It’s been way over a year since nothing of that importance really happened, I don’t see what is imminent in this... All we have heard is that it didn’t work with Helm for reason unknown and that we had 12 NDA’s. Out of those 12, we would aparently still be in discussion with some and we recently have been told that we are suposetly talking with some OEM. Talk, talk, talk, but nothing to show on the table. I want to believe, I really want, I actually did, but at the present time I’m just so fedup to hear the same thing over and over with nothing to back up the talk, no tangible news whatsoever. I really hope that it is about to change, we shall see... 7- AGM I asked him if they are planning to do an AGM by video conference or something else. He told me that they are presently looking at different scenario with their lawyers and they should be able to come back to us shortly with news in that regard. Like many of us probably, when I look at the members that are part of CRE board, I can’t help myself to think that we have such an amassing board !!! Some top notch people of the industry plus Primero. May be there is some week link, I don’t know, but the overall seem impressive at least on paper. I just can’t believe we wouldn’t be able to achieve our goal. The problem is we have been saying this for so long. I feel like we are in the Groundhog Day movie, reliving the same thing year after year. Like in any sport, you may have the best team on paper, it doesn’t mean you will win the championship at the end, we’ve seen it many times. I’m still long and strong, but I have been asking myself this question for a while now, at what point does it become incompetence, or manipulation? I’m starting to wonder if we have what it takes. I’m not talking about the goods, but the right people in the right place. Time will tell, lets hope this fall will be the right one... To each is own for where we stand with this company. It will be a pleasure to keep reading many of you. Be safe every one and have a good weekend.