Glorieux,

you stated:

so many CEOs having histories of 5 or 6 companies going bust, it gets hard to believe those CEOs. AE is not most venture CEOs!

this is not slight to AE, but what about the performance of companies he has been involved with in the past has granted him a gracious amount of goodwill in your books? Not to question AE's ability to run a company...yet I see nothing of note to grant AE additional slack I would of any other junior mining CEO....
plus, as it always is, the boom or bust of a junior miner at the end of the day depends on the deposit itself and the macroeconomic factors in which the deposit is being developed....the CEO cannot have a helping hand in any of those matters.

The last time people were beating the money drum and AE said not to worry...poof we had the Ontario Government give us $500k.

The $500K as i beleive was to be used directly for SGS testing for the PEA.
Do we know how much of that $500K has been used? In addition, what are the restrictions on the use of this $500K...or does the leftover funding go back to the Government?

Additionally, $500K is chumpchange compared to what will be needed to advance Albany to a PFS/BFS...I would not be banking on taxpayer money to continually cover expenses of a publicly traded junior mining company. I would actually be quite angered as a taxpayer to learn of a government continually giving handouts to a company with easy access to capital and equity markets...

The bashers will always bash but AE is the only one who knows what is going on and has delivered.

What exactly has AE delivered us in the past year exactly other than a year year delayed PEA which apparently disspointed a large chunk of ZEN shareholders....
Sharehodler value has crumbled by over 50% in the past year...special delivery!

Not a basher, just a realist...look forward to your comments on these items

1- i doubt said email even exists

2- email or call Sandra with your questions if you are looking for answers

thanks for the post Tidal Pool.

It sure sounds all good, but would you realistically ever expect a CEO to go into an interview and speak anything but positively about his company?

Financing for ZEN is a major concern of mine going forward, however that bit AE spoke of towards funding being offered is encouraging, however I would not put much stock into that until we see actually see the money come in.

Interested to know what the opinions of this group are as to the next steps forward for this ZEN and Albany...

The things concerning to me at this point are as follows:

- Disspointing PEA results (as i previously detailed)
- Financing for the next phases of the Albany project

Not sure what ZEN's financial state currently is or what their cash burn rate is, but that year delay of PEA work coupled with extensive testing at SGS could not have been kind to ZEN's bank account.

That being said, next up is the PFS...which is by no means a cheap task to take on and ZEN will now need to look for financing to advance the project. Question is, where....

with a deflated share price and likely short term cash need, there is a good chance that ZEN will need to raise cash at the expense of dilution to current shareholders.

That tight float many have boasted for ZEN may be about to loosen up...
though in fairness, the float is still looking better than alot of other graphite exploreres.

Nonetheless, I cant help but wonder where AE will be coming up with the money for a PFS other than a large equity raise and resulting dilution...

I doubt ZEN will be able to go running for more government money yet again...and if they do it will be peanuts compared to the actual cash needs.

all of a sudden those praising AE for refusing to turn to the markets for financing at $5/share arent applauding the strategy anymore...

something to think about anyways...

again JMO

What has changed in their minds?

What has changed between the 43-101 and the PEA?

ah not much, just the processing cost per tonne, selling price per tonne, ore cut-off grade, and the ore floatation recovery...none of which changed for the better by the way

o ya, and the economically feasible size of the deposit got chopped in half.

but you're right, other than that what has really changed?

so, its ok to let multiple people post "pump-ish" expecations for the PEA on here,

then when the PEA comes in with significantly lower numbers than the PEA-pump-posts, the response is that the "expecations were too high anyways, who cares we're all good"

that realistic approach to expectations of the PEA would have been better implemented pre-PEA rather than post-PEA.

I had tried to communicate this multiple times and was muzzeled.

o ya btw, i forgot... the IRR and NPV were signficiantly lower than any expectations (mine included).