RE: RE: Vein Valuations - Light on the Facts Apologies, I’d not seen or read your posting as I do family/friends/social stuff on weekends, I’m sure you appreciate.
Thanks for such a detailed response, it is a shame that you removed my valuations. Do we have to all just agree that all holders of ZEN will be squillionaires very soon?
My post was presenting two main thrusts:
- Vein Graphite whilst possessing slightly advantageous electrical properties, is in many applications interchangeable with Flake Graphite.
Your responses were both lengthy and extremely condescending. The chemistry lesson was sort of illuminating and I ‘think’ the offshoot of it all was that you do not agree with me.
Indeed, you said “It is unequivocally not interchangeable (vein and flake). Hydrothermal (is this not vein, Zenyatta themselves refer to it as Sri-Lankan type vein Graphite?) graphite is unique as a natural product when compared to flake graphite, but it is similar to synthetic graphite. You need to look outside the flake graphite propaganda box”.
I must call BS on your comments and all the science talk is not going to blind me. Look, Ashbury have been in the business 119 years. They sell all Graphite types, they have no reason to put any BS on their site pushing one type over another and this is what they have to say. Link for ya https://www.asbury.com/Graphite.html
Extracts from Ashbury:
Flake Graphite: Flake graphite is used in many applications including but not limited to powder metallurgy, fuel cell bi-polar plates, coatings, thermal materials, friction moderators, electrically conductive materials, refractories, general lubricant applications, pencils, gaskets, rubber compounds, and other advanced polymer systems. Expandable Graphite, this material is manufactured by treating flake graphite with various intercalation reagents that migrate between the graphene layers in a graphite crystal and remain as stable species.
Vein Graphite: vein graphite is utilized extensively in "formed" graphite products that are used in electrical applications. Many of the highest quality electrical motor brushes and other current-carrying carbons are based on formulations using vein graphite. In friction applications, vein graphite is used in advanced brake and clutch applications.
Looks to be some similarities there, but maybe Ashbury made an error and they should revert to Hoov?
Synthetic Graphite: Synthetic graphite is used in many applications including but not limited to friction, foundry, electrical carbons, fuel cell bi-polar plates, coatings, electrolytic processes, corrosion products, conductive fillers, rubber and plastic compounds, and drilling.
Look like all three have many of the same applications in common, with Flake and Synthetic having many of their own special uses, that vein is not used for, but hey what does Ashbury know anyway?
Maybe Fortune Graphite will give your argument some support: https://www.fortunegraphite.com/index.php
Vein Graphite: Lubricants, Castings, Batteries, Coatings, Powder Metal & Carbon Parts
Flake Graphite: Brake Linings/Pads, Batteries, Friction Materials, Fuel Cells, Gaskets, Seals, Bearings, Foils, Shrouds, Electrical Brushes, Composites, Crucibles, Carbon Pans, Coatings, Medical Applications, Graphite Sheets, Computer Circuit Boards, Sports Equipment, Lubricants, Powder Metal & Refractories
Your erm “unequivocally not interchangeable” argument is looking a bit weak. I’m going to try to help you out one last time. I am sure the corporate presentation from ZEN will clear this up and provide us with the unequivocal proof.
What about Superior Graphite?
- Energy Materials
- Lubricants
- Grinding Wheels
- Powder Metallurgy
- Electrical Components
- Friction Materials
- Plastics (composites)
- Carbon Brushes & Parts
Not again, this is getting repetitive is it not. Sorry, but there does seem to be a minor issue here. Everyone else seems to disagree with you.
So can we please agree that “It is unequivocally not interchangeable (vein and flake)” is primarily a load of BS. There’s a good lad.
- The lack of a resource estimate, information on mining methods, any details on the cost of anything opex or capex, make this difficult to value and therefore valuations of $55/share and growth to one of the largest mining companies in the world could be construed as misleading. Investors should consider a range of outcomes.
I felt this comment is pretty accurate, but hey you are in the multi-billion dollar valuation game, so no reason to let ‘reason’ cloud the hype eh?
You make so many assumptions in your posting with regards to point 2, it did make me smile. Remember my prose is that there is not yet adequate information to value and the investment is speculative:
Let me make note of some of your quotes:
“You are ignoring the size of the Albany deposit”, you mean the deposit that has not yet been defined and there has only been some drilling, but no resource estimate produced?
“The crush takes care of all mined material. Then it’s floated to concentrate, and washed with acid. Two-step concentration and purification”, you mean the process for which there is no proven process flow sheet as yet defined, no locked cycle etc...
“There is no comparison between Sri Lankan vein graphite and Zenyatta’s hydrothermal breccia graphite”. Is that the Graphite for which there are no detailed metallurgical studies are available as yet.
“Why drill something that cannot be economically recovered?” It is called exploration. Companies explore, some move on to feasibility and then production and others do not.
“That number (100k tpa) was attributable to Reuters, and likely represents mined tonnes, not product tonnes”. So why is one of the TC Team using it in a valuation as annual production then? That ‘could’ lead to a valuation that was somewhat misrepresented, imagine if someone based an investment decision on that information.
So in conclusion:
Firstly, Vein and Flake ARE interchangeable in many applications (by nature of them being actually used in the same applications and marketed and sold as such by numerous companies).
Second, there is not enough information (to NI43 standards) to value this prospect and to suggest multi-billion $ valuations on the basis of a mistake (ore mined presented as finished good in the calculation!) could (in some investing circles) be construed as misleading.
Just saying.
https://www.cormark.com/
LOL.