(Ottawa) An expert review of Canada Carbon’s (CCB: TSX-V) Miller project in Grenville-sur-la-Rouge, Quebec, concludes the project does not demonstrate economic viability and is not worth the $96 million the company is threatening to claim from the municipality opposing the project. MiningWatch Canada filed a complaint with the B.C. Securities Commission today.
In the 14-page report, Jim Kuipers, a professional engineer with over 35 years’ experience in the mining sector, notes: “Because the results of the [current company’s studies] are based on inferred mineral resources rather than mineral reserves, as defined by CIM [Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum] and the N.I. 43-101 [securities standard], the information provided does not provide a basis for economic viability.”
Kuipers, principal engineer at Kuipers & Associates, points to multiple assumptions underlying the current studies that are speculative and present significant additional risks, including: a low Canada-USA exchange rate; uncertain market for ‘nuclear graphite;’ no contract confirmed; unclear capital and operating costs; undefined ‘proprietary process’ that has not been proven at scale; and significant risk to the project’s social licence.
Of the company’s $96 million claim, the Montana-based engineer says: “There is no valid technical basis for estimation of compensatory damages relative to a project based on speculation and that has not demonstrated economic viability. In our experience, claims that are not based on a valid economic analysis are generally considered speculative and are often used as a “threat” in legal proceedings.”
MiningWatch Canada filed a complaint with the B.C. Securities Commission earlier today. The mining watchdog claims that the company and its representatives fail to comply with the N.I. 43-101 Standard when they assert publicly a $96 million economic value to their project, while the later is based on inferred resources and a preliminary economic assessment. Ugo Lapointe, MiningWatch Canada spokesperson, comments, “Without proper cautionary statements, this clearly appears to be contrary to the securities standards.”
Lapointe adds, “Overall, this seems to us like a company with a highly speculative and unrealistic project hoping to make more money in court than they could have ever done otherwise. Let’s hope both the court system and the provincial government will see through this, and if needed, fix laws so that it doesn’t repeat in the future.”
See full expert report here.