RE:Interesting Studygonefishing5879 wrote: This ZEN vs CCB tug of war is an interesting study? ....Why would investors see each other as a threat? .....Or is it that investors have chosen one over the other and don't want to admit that they both could be good investments?.....As I see it they are both far from DE-RISKED but both could defy the odds and be successful. ....Here's how they stack up....:
ZEN
- has been having trouble with metallurgy for over a year.......but they are not giving up.....they may have to give up the dream of being environmentally friendly but still has a good chance of getting those pesky impurities out of the ore
- has attracted some interest from end users who could become partners for value added products assuming ZEN can produce a high purity graphite consistently
-ZEN is careful not to disclose enough info to determine accurately what their results really are
-ZEN will need to sell the high purity material at top prices to make the project economic
CCB
- has proven that the metallurgy is simple and cheap and produces high purity graphite
- has yet to show that they have an economic resource
- has attracted a lot of interest from end users
- is working on a PEA, mining and processing permits
So both have potential but both have risks...
They are not in competition with each other for end users
Just sayin
Your assessment Gone Fishing or SN, whatever the alias, is a most misleading to the investing public imo. “Why would investors see each other as a threat? Investors like you who misrepresent the facts and twist the truth. Your quotes are most deceptive, in that ZEN “has attracted some interest from end-users”? and CCB “has attracted a lot of interest from end-users”? Where are your facts, like public acknowledgements by each company, the claims of end-user interest? From the latest ZEN NR, 09 March 2015, Zenyatta disclosed the following, “the Company has had detailed conversations with more than 35 graphite end-users, academic labs and third party testing facilities in Europe, North America and Asia under confidentiality agreements.” So ZEN publicly disclosed 35 graphite end-users. As for CCB, these comments made 13 Jan 2015, “A number of potential off-takers in attendance at the conference were made aware of the unique technical characteristics of our Miller HLV graphite and have since begun the off-take qualification process” and it is true, as stated in the same NR, 20t is being sent to ONE end-user for assessment, quote, “This graphite processor has now requested a container shipment, holding not less than 20 metric tonnes of the Miller HLV graphite, to conduct a full-scale process qualification”. So this Investor see’s one confirmed end-user publicly acknowledged with interest in the Millar Graphite and maybe some others from the conference. GoFish, how many official confidential agreements or NDA’s has CCB disclosed? ZEN has disclosed 35 end-user nda’s. Gonefishing, how can you state, “CCB has a lot of interest” and that “ZEN has only attracted some interest”? As for the rest of your misleading statements in comparison re: ZEN, due to my time constraints, I’ll leave that discussion until the PEA is delivered in short order, the same economic analysis process you just begin, once you have enough drill results and assays to establish a Resource Estimate. Cheers, Mark