RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Question - DOE Study - Natural v Syntheticbigask wrote
If the report said, ZEN was an active supplier, than they did supply the natural graphite.
The report did not say that ZEN was an active supplier.
1. Slide 16 was titled "Collaborators"
2. The subheading was "Partners"
3. ZEN was identifed as one of the "Active Material Suppliers"
4. There was also a list of "Inactive Material Suppliers"
5. The active / inactive refers to the type of material that a supplier produces, not whether or not the supplier is active or inactive.
6. Just because a company produces graphite and is a collorative partner on a scientific study does not necessarily mean that the company actually supplied any graphite material.
7. In a scientific study, a collaborative partner can play a part by reviewing reports and providing feedback. In these types of studies, there is generally a vast number of emails exchanged among the participants.
8. Finally, consider the fact that the 3 year project would have been more than 50% complete before ZEN was even capable of delivering any samples.
Proclaiming ZEN's participation in these studies to be a "game changer" is nothing but pompous pumping by short term traders hoping to exit at higher prices.
At least one of the clowns has posted that ZEN was a large position (percentagewise).
It is great that ZEN is a partner in the projects. It is acquiring access to important industry research and building its network of contacts, That may benefit the company in the long run.
A "game changer"? Hardly, not even close.