Not sure why this is confusing to people or why people are acting surprised by the announcement of a drill program on the other claims. In fact, they even disclosed it to the public in thier latest MD&A, and the MD&A before that, and the MD&A before that, and the MD&A before that.......

As for anyone insinuating that this is in anyway related to the results of the Albany metallurgical testing, that is clearly false and completely misleading information.

"Outlook The priority for the Corporation at this point is to continue market and business development, metallurgical testing at SGS and a preliminary economic assessment by RPA Inc. on the 100% owned Albany Graphite Deposit throughout the 2014 calendar year with a remaining budget of approximately $500,000. Additionally, a drilling program is being planned for the 2015 calendar year on the other Claims held under agreement with Cliffs Canada with a budget of approximately $200,000."

TaKeNoTeS

Hi Money75,

I'm still here, just don't read the boards everyday anymore. Less stressful that way as we continue to wait. Yes, we are delayed once again. It is what it is as Zenyatta is dependent on 3rd parties like it or not. As far as I'm concerned though, not much has changed other than the share price. If anything, things have only gotten better.

When it comes to metallurgical process development, it is never simple and takes time to get it right. Even when Zen does release the PEA, the work does not stop there. They will continue to optimize the process and seek to make improvements. It's all in the normal course of business.

From the latest NR, they were able to reduce the NaOH regent dosage by 86% which is excellent. Of course people will like to point out that we don't know the starting dosage so we can't conclude on the significance of the 86%. Which is correct if you were to ignore the other part of the statement which was that "optimization of the NaOH consumption was achieved such that re-cycling was eliminated thereby reducing costs related to introduction of re-cycling engineering & equipment."

So what can we take away from these statements. How that reads to me is that the NaOH regent dosage is now low enough that the costs of re-cycling the NaOH outweighs the benefits and savings received from re-cycling. In addition, it simplifies the purification process by eliminating the additional engineering & equipment. All of which translates to significant cost savings.

It's a game of wait and see at the moment, but I will continue to wait as I'm comfortable with my holdings.

Best regards and a happy New Year to all!

TaKeNoTeS

So, what I've learned in my time invested in Zenyatta Ventures is simply that the graphite market is one of the most ridiculous, secretive, and hard to understand industries I've ever had the pleasure of learning. Amorphous, Flake, Vein, Hydrothermal, Synthetic… all "lumped" under the title of "Graphite" but vary significantly from one another. No wonder there are so many misconceptions out there even from some of the self-proclaimed "experts" in the industry.

As for myself, by no means do I claim to be an expert here so take it as such. That said, my countless hours of research on the topic has provided me with solid knowledge of the industry and allowed me to see through these misconceptions. Rather than getting into these, however, below is some of my research on why I believe Zenyatta's Albany graphite has the greatest chance for success in the lithium-ion battery market.

Please note that I have taken excerpts from various papers and articles, with the links provided. All of my own comments are in bold font.

Let me start by saying this… ALL GRAPHITE DEPOSITS ARE NOT EQUALS. The way the deposit was formed (metamorphic vs. hydrothermal origin) and the speed, pressure & heat at which it was formed will alter the properties of the graphite significantly, change the crystal structure, and result in some graphite being easier to purify than others. Don Hains from Zenyatta provides a great explanation of the process and importance of the formation of the graphite below:

DH: If you have a standard graphite deposit, the carbon has been transformed into graphite through heat and pressure, but it started from, essentially, an organic carbon source. The Zenyatta material has basically started from a gaseous carbon source in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4), probably a combination of the two. So Zenyatta’s graphite hasn’t gone through this combination of heat and pressure. Metamorphic origin graphite is always in what is called a high metamorphic grade rock, in terms of the host rocks that are around; it’s always in a schist-type environment. By necessity you will never get graphite in a metamorphic environment, as pure as you would in the type of origin that the Zenyatta graphite comes from, because there are more contaminants in the rock. There’s more opportunity for incorporation of deleterious material in the graphite crystal. What’s happening in a metamorphic environment is that the host rocks are generally granites and other, by and large, aluminosilicate-type rocks. They could be carbonate-type rocks as well. So you have, under various conditions of heat and pressure, movement of deleterious ions or atoms being trapped in the graphite flakes and bonding between carbon atoms and other material. Simply put, that means that you can’t get this very pure graphite that Zenyatta has. Meaning, that if there are any contaminants in there, they are actually in between the flakes or graphite particles, rather than incorporated directly into the graphite particles. When one processes graphite, the flakes are separated – the graphite particles – so the gangue material (the deleterious stuff in the Zenyatta graphite) disappears, because it’s not part of the graphite. This is in contrast to a normal graphite deposit where some of the gangue material is incorporated into the graphite.

http://investorintel.com/graphite-graphene-intel/understanding-zen-graphite-industry/#sthash.eMZrhQQt.zkmCI7N5.dpuf

So why is this important? Well, it all comes down to ease of purification. What one company can do, DOES NOT mean others can do as well. Zenyatta has been able to achieve what NO other graphite company on record that I can find has been able to achieve when it comes to purification. Utilizing a simple, low cost, caustic roast (with NO acid leach at the end), they have been able to achieve 99.95% Cg without the use of expensive acids or thermal treatment. Let me clarify, other companies have utilized the caustic roast process as well but were NOT successful in reaching the same purity as Zenyatta. In addition, at the end of the process, they leach the graphite with acid. Zenyatta DOES NOT leach with acid, rather they simply wash with water. Once again, Don Hains provided the best explanation of this process:

DH: Generally, you use a combination of heat and acid. The Zenyatta process is a caustic bake. You take the graphite concentrate that you’ve produced in your first stage. The process is, you have your rock and you grind it up, then you mix it into water and you add some flotation reagent that causes the graphite to collect at the top on the surface; bubbles basically. The gangue minerals tend to settle down to the bottom of the flotation cell and you pull those off, and you skim off those bubbles that have graphite particles attached to them. And it goes through a series of these tanks — agitated vessels. And eventually you wind up with a graphite concentrate that will have a certain percentage of carbon in it, plus other stuff that you haven’t been able to fully liberate. Because they’re small enough and they have similar kinds of properties to the bubbles. And that’s true for any graphite processing operation. So then you take that concentrate and in Zenyatta’s case, mix it in with caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) (note: caustic soda and sodium hydroxide are the same thing), so you put that into a furnace (and it will be a rotating furnace, a rotary kiln. The work that was done in the initial stage of test work was not a rotary kiln; it was stationary. It was basically just a container, so the heat transfer is not as good as a rotary mixer/rotary kiln. So we expect improvements in the reaction kinetics. It should speed up the process). But what happens there is that the caustic then combines with the residual gangue minerals that are in your concentrate and basically causes them to form different mineral compounds that are very different from the carbon. So that stuff comes out of the kiln (and they may or may not cool it down, depending on what’s more effective in terms of the leaching) and you rinse it with water. And what happens is the carbon stays there and the minerals basically get washed away.

Typically, for natural graphite to meet the required specifications to be used as a component of the anode for lithium-ion batteries, the graphite needs to be purified to very high levels (>99.9% Cg) and the material also needs to be spheroidized. To understand this concept, please read the following from TMR:

Battery-grade graphite requires very high purity levels, typically >99.9% carbon-as-graphite (Cg). This material also needs to be spheroidized using careful processes that convert the flat graphite flakes into potato-like shapes, which pack much more efficiently into a given space. The high purity levels and the enhanced "tapping" density (to >0.9 kg/m3) are important for producing the high electrical conductivity that is required during anode operation.

Spheroidizing the graphite flakes also reduces their size, a process known as micronization. Standard battery-grade materials require an average diameter of approximately 10-30 μm, so in theory, feedstock materials with flake sizes greater than 30 μm (+400 mesh) could be used. However, starting purity levels tend to decrease with flake size, so flake material with an average diameter of 150 μm (+150 mesh) or greater is typically used. This is, of course, a double-edged sword, since the larger the flakes used, the more energy will be required to reduce the average size of the flakes to the desired 10-30 μm. Smaller particles are preferred, as this makes it easier for the lithium ions in the electrolyte to diffuse between graphite particles.

It should be noted that it is the tendency for purity levels to increase with flake size that is the real reason for the common 'mantra' that for battery-grade materials, the bigger the flake size, the better. In fact, the ideal precursor material would have small flake size if it had sufficient purity levels for the subsequent processing to be cost-effective.

One other important factor in the production of battery-grade materials is that of wastage. The standard spheroidizing and micronizing processes used in China waste up to 60-70% of the mass of total graphite flakes present during processing. Therefore, for every one tonne of spheroidal graphite produced in China, approximately three tonnes of feedstock materials might be required (though the waste materials can be used for other purposes). The graphite may be purified before or after spheroidizing and micronizing, depending on the manufacturer.

http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/2014/03/going-natural-the-solution-to-teslas-graphite-problem/

So what did we learn from this. First off, the high purity necessary of >99.9% Cg. Secondly, small flake sizes are harder to purify than the larger flake sizes. Hence, the common saying out there that the bigger the flake size the better. In some application, that saying does hold true. For batteries, ideally it is not. Typically, flake graphite greater than 150 microns is used as it easier to purify than smaller flake. This graphite is purified to >99.9% using expensive acid or thermal treatments, spheroidized and micronized to meet certain specification. The more crushing, grinding and processing you do, the more you effect and essentially damage the crystal morphology of the graphite. Throughout this spheroidizing and micronizing process, you lose anywhere from 50% and up to 70% of your feed stock. These significant losses and expensive processing methods are a barrier for anyone trying to compete with China.

So how does this all apply to Zenyatta? From Mr. Tadashi Yamasita's recent presentation in Japan, we've learned the following regarding Zen's particle size distribution:

Hexagonal crystal structure

D10: 7.5 Microns (meaning 10% of the graphite is smaller than 7.5 microns)

D50: 13.3 Microns (meaning the median particle size is 13.3 microns)

D90: 39.5 Microns (meaning 90% of the graphite is smaller than 39.5 microns)

>99.95% Cg by GDMS

http://sky.geocities.jp/kanadatoshishigen/material/zeyatta2014.pdf

You will note that the particle size distributions fall between 7.5 microns and 39.5 microns and 99.95% Cg. ALREADY meeting the required particle size and purity for lithium-ion batteries WITHOUT the need go through acid/thermal purification, spheroidization or micronization (IMO). Please take a look at the following link from Elcora Resources (where Dr. Flint works from that great interview on investor intel) and note the chart on micron sizes and the following paragraphs.

Ball graphite is essentially larger flakes that are rolled into a ball. This is typically done with jumbo sized flakes but can be done at smaller particle sizes. At the 300 micrometer size a recovery of about 80% is anticipated. As smaller sized particles are used this recovery is lowered. It is anticipated that the recoveries might be as low as 50% at sizes smaller than about 150 micrometers. These recoveries are estimates based on personal interviews with operators and are not substantiated with rigorous test work or documentation and are used as a guide only.

Figure 5: Graphite sizes used for lithium ion batteries. Direct use refers to graphite that can be used without further processing and ball graphite refers to graphite that has been folded into spheres. In both cases specific surface area requirements must be met.

http://elcoraresources.com/graphite-consumption/

Note that we fall within the particle size range on that chart for "Direct use". Ahh but the pundits will say Zen will still need to be folded into "potato shapes" or spheres as they say in order to meet specific surface area requirements. I'll let Don Hains take care of that one:

DH: It certainly can fit into use in lithium-ion batteries and other battery applications, as a component of the anode. You need high-purity graphite there. Everybody is talking about, ‘oh you need large flake because then you produce the spheroidal graphite that is needed in the anodes’, but the losses there are quite high in terms of the production process. If you have material that will give you the same surface area – and what they’re looking for is surface area – and the surface area that has been evaluated to date on the Zenyatta material is comparable to other products/materials out there and certainly to synthetic graphite. And so that is without doing any post-processing at all. That’s the stuff that came out of the initial test work; nothing’s been done to that at all. That was the final product that came out and it is what it is, and has not had anything else done to it. It has a comparable surface area to the materials that are currently being used, it’s highly crystalline and that’s quite desirable in most of these applications. High crystallinity translates to high conductivity, with minimal adverse impacts in terms of performance of the product and so forth.

But what about electrical resistivity and conductivity they may say?

Published physics data on electrical resistivity of graphite typically ranges from .003 to .060 ohm-centimetres. Zenyatta’s graphite showed a resistivity of .0034 ohm-centimetres for a compressed bulk graphite test bar measuring 50x12x2.4mm. These results are comparable with high grade synthetic graphite and represent a value at the top of the range.

They've provided the particle size distribution but can they upgrade all flake sizes to that purity? A valid question, one of which hasn't been confirmed with released data at this time. However, as we are aware that it is harder to purify the smaller the flake size, and that the typical flake size is between 7 and 40 microns, and that they achieved 99.95% Cg by GDMS, it's my opinion that most if not all can be upgraded to that purity through a simple caustic baking process. From Zenyatta's press release and Don Hains once again:

The entire 170 metre graphite zone from drill hole 5 was used for this testing. All trials using a simple caustic baking leach process conclusively demonstrated that an ultra-high purity graphite product with >99.97% Carbon (“C”) can be produced from the Albany graphite deposit. The process was successfully applied to a variety of graphite concentrate samples that had initial carbon grades in the range of 46 – 90% using conventional flotation techniques. In all trials the final purity values were >99.97% C and up to 99.99% C in many cases, regardless of initial carbon grades.

Don Hains: And regardless of the grade of the concentrate that went in to the final purification process, they were able to produce the >99.99% material.

Why are they so quiet? It's the nature of the industry, simple as that. Graphite does not have spot prices like gold or silver as every sample is different from the other. Pricing is determined on a customer to customer basis. Confidentiality agreements are required and Zen has over 25 of them with major corporations and 10 with resource facilities. Testing is everything and requires time. Re-watch Dr. Flint's interview below as he provides great insight to the industry and clarifies some of the other misconceptions.

http://investorintel.com/graphite-graphene-intel/elcoras-dr-ian-flint-teslas-challenge-find-graphite/

The Biggest validation for me, however, was the signing of Dr. Bharat Chahar as VP of market development. This guy was a major player in the industry as the head of the CPREME division at CP, understands how to mill & refine graphite to meet strict customer specs, and has the contacts necessary to make deals happen. Read some of his research papers on graphite for li-ion batteries if you don't understand what this guy brings to the table for Zenyatta. An example below:

http://www.evs24.org/wevajournal/php/download.php?f=vol3/WEVJ3-6740576.pdf

For these reasons and others I don't feel like typing, I truly believe Zenyatta has the best shot at the lithium-ion battery market. That said, there are many other markets such as fuel cells and the high purity powder market that are of equal importance and shouldn't be discounted by any means. Zen will have its day and with material already in end users hands, it could be sooner than you think.

TaKeNoTeS

It will be interesting to see how Zenyatta & RPA decide to interpret this information in the PEA. The only logical solution would be to use a base case or a couple for that matter in the PEA. I doubt the samples are drastically different from one another but each NDA will probably require different variations in specs. All of which take time (SGS) and expertise (Dr. Chahar) to produce.

But you are spot on in your questions. That's exactly what makes the graphite space so unique and unlike all other markets. Gold = Gold. Silver = Silver. Graphite = ... not so much. Every deposit is different and each will have their own unique characteristics & properties.

I do believe people are focusing too much on the "projected" selling price for the graphite. After all, it's only a projection based on market analysis. If you take a read through a number of graphite PEA reports out there, you will see that numbers higher than even $8,500 have already been used for battery grade graphite. The real question relates to the testing being done to substantiate these claims.

Some flake companies have been successful in producing battery grade graphite and have successfully tested it in a battery. The main issue here for flake graphite relates to the significant yield loss on producing spherical graphite of approximately 50%-75% and the cost to get it there (use of acids), of which they haven't been very transparent.

As many here have already shown, specs released by Zenyatta look to be on par with those of synthetic graphite used in li-ion batteries. I only expect improvement from the metallurgical testing being done by SGS. They may be very quiet at the moment, but I take that as a sign of confidence. It's not retail they need to convince here, it's the multi-nationals already under NDA. People can make things up all they want, but I do believe Zen will let the graphite do the talking for them.

Thanks again for the update Glorieux.

TaKeNoTeS

"Thanx for that update G ... muchly appreciated.

If we've got 30-40 samples circulating, all with different specs., how many volumes (pages) in size will the PEA end up being???

And, how do they determine the "average" numbers for any ONE of the characteristics of the Cg in ZENs assesment/value?

Just wondering."

Wow, goldhunter11 and LTgoldbull2. Boy are we on the same page. I haven't read Agora at all today until now and I realize we found the same article on the Woxna purification process. I was actually able to find a version where you can read the whole report (see below). And I posted the following to SH as a rebuttal to BG. Not to take any credit away from you goldhunter11 :) great research!

Bob,

Before I begin to dismatle your argument, let's rehash a few things here.

You stated and I quote:
"1 ton of sample --------------------------> 20 tons caustic soda. 20 tons NAOH at the median of $400 USD/ ton would be $8,000 USD."

As well as:
"Eveleigh has stated they use 25% sodium hydroxide by weight. I'm not sure what he means by that because when you look at the NAOH charge on the Walker tests, it was no 25% by weight."

I'll get to your first statement in a minute, but let's begin with the second. Your "not sure what he means" really means that one, you are clueless, or two, that you believe AE is lying just because Walker used 30%-50%. So which one is it?

AE said and I quote:
"A caustic bake is sodium hydroxide. It’s not an acid as some people are suggesting; it’s sodium hydroxide, 25 percent by weight, and we can recycle that material. After you go through that process it comes out at 99.99 percent.

Do you believe he is making this up or do you not understand what he means by 25% by weight? It's pretty clear to me, but that's beside the point. For the record, Walker did not use SGS, so I do not see how you can assume that their process is the same. But let's continue.

Don Hains was nice enough to provide you a good hint of where to find a comparable process using caustic soda on graphite. Instead, you used the Walker results and have therefore concluded that this analysis is what Zenyatta's should be based upon. You then estimated that Zenyatta's cost of purification per tonne using the caustic bake method would amount to approx. $8k. (LMAO). While ignoring the fact that the caustic soda could be recovered and resused in the process, thus, significantly reducing your highly inflated costs already by at least 50%.

Continuing on. Don Hains stated and I quote:
"And the best example I can give you is the Woxna graphite deposit in Sweden that’s being developed by Flinders Resources. That material (in terms of concentrates) was produced at that deposit and processed using a flow sheet of the kind of process that Zenyatta is talking about, in terms of a caustic bake process."

Little surprised you didn't catch that one with all the research you've done on a Company in which you hold no equity in, but decided to investigate for every little thing you can find, in order to help save investors from a "lousy" PEA. Thanks for that. We are all greatly appreciative of hard time and effort. I can see you have a great life outside of posting on BB's with the amount of time you spent posting on this forum the past weekend.

So getting back to DH's hint of looking at the Woxna deposit. A little research and you would have come across this technical report, labeled "Preparation of High Purity and low-sulphur graphite from Woxna fine graphite concentrate by alkali roasting".

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/123864969

I highly suggest that everyone here read this paper as it will provide you with better insight into the caustic bake process. A couple things to note from the paper:

1) They used 25% NaOH by weight roasting at 250 C
2) "In addition to the successful removal of silicate impurities, the process was also found to be effective to eliminate sulphide impurities"
3) "The results show that along with the increase of NaOH concentration the product purity rises until the concentration reaches 25%, after that the purity curve becomes flat.
4) "The material can be effectively purified even at low roasting temperatures."
5) " The raw material was mixed with 25% NaOH solution in a liquid/solid ratio of 2:1 (w/w), and then roasted at different temperatures for 1h"

For comparison, Walker used a 30-50% NaOH solution in a ratio of 20:1 and then roasted for 6 hrs to achieve those results. Don Hains stated that Zenyatta's flow sheet is similar to Woxna. I'll go with that one. So how about we re-run your cost estimate using these new inputs and a low recovery rate of approx 25%.

"1 ton of sample --------------------------> 2 tons liquid solution @ 25% NaOH by weight = 1/2 tonne caustic soda. 1/2 ton NAOH at the median of $400 USD/ ton would be $200 USD. * 50% recovery = $100 USD" And that doesn't even include the reduction in roasting time from 6 hrs (Walker) to 1 hr (Woxna).

Also note that Woxna then performed an acid leach to remove the remaining impurities in order to achieve 99.4% Cg, while Zenyatta literally rinses with water to achieve 99.99+% Cg using a similar process flow sheet.

Will the cost be as low as $100/tonne? Maybe? But my guess is higher. But as high as $8,500/tonne? Hahahahahahah at least now everyone can see how flawed your "assumptions" really are.

The only person that will not be laughing when the PEA comes out will be you Bobby boy.

TaKeNoTeS




BobGreenfield wrote: Takenotes, I suppose you're not familiar with the dissolution process (NAOH digestion) in the Bayer method for processing Bauxites as opposed to NAOH use for graphite purification. The sodium hydroxide solution is generally about 10% for Bauxites whereas the Walker solution was 30% and 50%.

The NAOH inputs for the Walker tests can't be disputed.

I did not offer the Walker template as an absolute. It was for illustrative purposes only and the numbers are self explanatory.

Eveleigh has stated they use 25% sodium hydroxide by weight. I'm not sure what he means by that because when you look at the NAOH charge on the Walker tests, it was no 25% by weight. The Walker tests started with a higher initial grade so Eveleighs comments are puzzling to say the least.

We will see if Zenyatta investors are still laughing when the PEA finally comes out. I'm not routing for a lousy PEA, I hate to see investors lose their shirts when poor results come out. You don't seem to think there is any chance of a poor result because of the Bayer process ? That deserves a ....................... WOW !

TaKeNoTeS wrote: Hahaha so Bobby boy estimates that it will cost ZEN $8k/tonne for purification alone using the caustic bake??? Hahahahahahahahaha you actually got a laugh out of me on that one. Wow is all I have to say. Who brought the circus to town?

Makes me wonder how in the world they are still producing alumina nowadays huh? At selling prices of approx $400/tonne of alumina, there losses must be astronomical with cost of using caustic soda in the bayer process according to our very own SH genius Bob.

Thanks for the laugh again, I have no need to ever discuss anything with you again after comments like these below:

The caustic soda input ratio on the 6 hour cycle tests for Walker is about 1 part sample to 20 parts caustic soda.

Alibaba prices are in the $300-500 USD range/ton NAOH.

1 ton of sample --------------------------> 20 tons caustic soda. 20 tons NAOH at the median of $400 USD/ ton would be $8,000 USD.

Add in every other cost and things start to look questionable in my opinion.

Per request, here is my post from yesterday on TCC. Feel free to pass along my questions to Bob on SH as I made a promise to myself not to post on that garbage site anymore. Note, some comments were more directed towards the TCC community than anywhere else. Also note, that I found several other instances by other companies besides the three listed below. Why he decided to put a target on Zenyatta's back and ignore all the others? You decide.


Personally, I'm very tired of all this nonsense. I'm tired of the bickering, the agendas, the fighting, the constant comparing of ZEN and CCB, and all the other bullshit being spawn across the web.

First off, if you've made money off of Zen or CCB, then congrats. I think we can all agree that we are all here to make $$$. That is the main goal for everyone here. However, everyone has an "agenda", like it or not, so you need to take what is said by everyone here with a grain of salt, myself included. Why some people feel the need to post on stocks they do not hold, I will never understand. That is just something that I do not do, but beside the point. Management has been frustrating, I will agree with that. However, if you do not trust management's approach, then I do not understand why one would continue to invest. Sell and move on, there are plenty of other stocks out there.

That said, I believe there are too many conspiracy theories being thrown out there with no basis at all. I will attempt to put some of them in better perspective below, starting with the most recent.

1) BobGreenfield:
"In my assessment it becomes very clear, a pattern of completely inadequate disclosure, which is not in compliance with NI 43-101 as outlined in the regulatory literature.

As I stated earlier, the concerns mostly relate to 3.3(2)(f):

“3.3 (2) If an issuer discloses in writing sample, analytical or testing results on a property material to the issuer, the issuer must include in the written disclosure, with respect to the results being disclosed,

(f) a summary description of the type of analytical or testing procedures utilized, sample size, the name and location of each analytical or testing laboratory used, and any relationship of the laboratory to the issuer.”

Of the three metallurgical reports issued by press release, the analytical and testing procedures are not described and the sample size isn't expressed either. It's not remotely possible to figure out just what procedures were applied to the graphite and this makes the reported results impossible to fully interpret.

In the April 25, 2013, press release, Aubrey Eveleigh (President, CEO and QP for the press release) makes a remark about “good recoveries” but he doesn't provide any disclosure of what the recovery actually was. Eveleigh also makes a value judgment about the economics of the processing by saying "relatively inexpensive" without providing comparator costs or alternate processing techniques. The Company to this day uses the low-cost processing angle in its Corporate powerpoint presentations without providing any independent evidence for such a claim."

Caustic bake inputs and cycle times, it's not a small detail to be left out of a technical report, among other things."

Read more at
http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.ccb/canada-carbon-inc?postid=22719753

To that I say, if Zenyatta and AE are at fault for inadequate disclosure, then perhaps EGZ, Alabama, & Graphite One should all be reported to the OSC as well???

Please feel free to explain to me how any of the following news releases on SGS purity results from the aforementioned companies adhere to the accusations and regulations provided by BobGreenfield.

http://www.gphofreports.com/gph-v-graphite-one-samples-yield-high-purity-99-99-carbon-second-series-beneficiation-tests/

http://alabamagraphite.com/news/alabama-graphite-reports-25-28-large-flake-from-initial-metallurgy-at-its-coosa-project-in-alabama-usa/

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/energizer-resources-achieves-ultra-high-purity-of-greater-than-999-graphitic-carbon-otcbb-enzr-1815291.htm

I see no glaring differences in these news releases above compared to Zenyatta's news releases. And I do not see any description of the LECO assay process in any of these news releases. To me, this is an unfounded and completely moot topic point that was created to cast doubt in people's minds. Mostly likely spurred by Zenyatta inventors bashing on CCB, but uncalled for no less.

2) PEA Delay
"SGS has requested additional time to complete the metallurgical scale up and optimization of the flow sheet." Zenyatta essentially blamed them for the delay. SGS has a reputation to uphold. Simple as that. Not sure why there are so many conspiracy theories as to why the delay. With the recent firing at SGS and the number of other companies utilizing SGS today, processing and performing metallurgical analysis on two 5 tonne samples is no small task to undertake. Why is this so hard to believe?

3) Cliffs Selling
Umm... has anyone seen Cliff's stock price as of late?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CLF&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

They are a distressed company, currently in a battle with Casablanca Capital, in debt up to their ass and barely staying afloat. Of course they are selling Zenyatta, one of their few profitable non-core assets, at a time like this. Wouldn't you? But what's more important is that they are not selling the block at these prices. As Chief has stated, they received an offer for 2 million shares but won't do it at this price. The recent selling was most likely to get under the reporting threshold and to dress up their latest quarterly report IMHO.

4) ZEN vs CCB
What is this, a d*ck size contest? My purity is better than your purity by a whole .01%. Who gives a flying f*ck is what I have to say. Stop the bullshit on both sides.

5) It's all just Noise.
All this bullshit above means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The news releases, the delay, the conspiracies, the battles, and even the PEA mean jack shit. Yes, I said it. Even the PEA. Yes, there will be very good information in there but whether $8,500 or $10,000 or $30,000/ tonne, it really doesn't matter. Everyone is overlooking the most important element and which I believe is management's main focus at this time. Testing of the graphite and getting it into end user's hands.

End users want to know if the end product can be used in their applications plain and simple. Can it be refined to meet the specs, how well does it perform, and how much does it cost to get it there. Personally, I'd rather the Company wait to release the PEA until all end user testing has been performed. Think about it for a minute.

Situation 1)
Zen release PEA tmrw which shows a +100 IRR and a $2B NPV using $8,500/tonne. Freaking awesome! But then.. the bullshit starts all over again from the bashers. "Unrealistic".. "Never been proven".. "Hydrothermal can't replace Synthetic in those applications".. Blah blah blah.. I can see it all unfolding already.

Situation 2)
Zen releases PEA 2 months from now with the same numbers. However, this time, they accompany it with saying, "the graphite has been successfully tested by the likes of Panasonic, LG Chem, etc., as a replacement for synthetic graphite in these applications, thus, the price used is justified."

Which situation would you prefer? Will it happen that way? Who knows... but my guess is that the 20+ confidentiality agreements already signed wasn't just to compare d*ck sizes all over again.

Concluding thoughts:
I do admit that some things could have been handled better by the Company and management. However, there are also other things that have happened such as Cliffs and timing that are out of their control. Once again, if you have lost faith in management, then I do not understand why you would stay invested. I would sell if it were me, but I do believe management has the end goal in mind here. After all, AE still owns 5M shares and he has brought in the likes of Dr. Chahar and Tadashi Yamashita. No other Company I can think of has brought in a man of that caliber who knows the synthetic graphite industry inside and out. Do your research on the Dr. is all I'm saying.

Think for yourselves people and stop with the bullshit is all I ask. I don't expect everyone to agree with my thoughts nor do I want you to. After all, I do have an agenda.

TaKeNoTeS