Hello hoov

Thanks for your responses. A few remarks on your responses

- Earning, Earrings?: I was about to apologize for my misspelling, but I checked my post again, and infact when I replied to John Lennon's tongue-in-cheek remark "how many earrings is that" I correctly referred to "earrings" (correctly spelled and all) as a tongue-in-cheek lead-in sentence. Phew...what a relief, I thought my eyes have failed me.

For the record, I meant "earrings" and not "earnings". And also, you certainly did not make any "earnings projections" in your previous post.

- In-situ resource estimate: Yes, you are quite correct. People are less familiar with graphite compared to gold, hence one way to explain to people is a conversion to gold equivalent. That's is fine, but making it too simple, without considering other factors that would be required to bring the stuff above ground and process it to the form that could be converted to money, could lead to potential mis-conception about the value of the graphite resources

I would have no problem if the graphite, in its final form, on the ground and after processing, ready to be sold in the range of $1000-8000/tonne, is converted to gold equivalent (in its final form ready to be sold in the range $1200 -1300/oz).

- In-situ versus "above ground": Regardless of the material, graphite or gold, the actual value paid in a take-out offer would have to be modified by factors like 0.01%, 1%, or 10%, as you said. But this factor would vary significant depending on so many things, including the ease of extraction, the political climate, etc..., and especially how desperate the seller would be. If the seller is broke then it would be at the mercy of the buyer (could be a 0.01% case, in your example). In my opinion, it is difficult enough to determine this factor even if we stay in the same sector, e.g. graphite, since there are examples for the in-situ to on-the-ground conversion. Mixing gold in there would only create more complications...since gold is a different kind of fish with its own examples.

Price of $8000 versus 8500/tonne: I always talk round numbers, i.e. order of magnitude only. Hence, I would pay no attention to the difference of $500/tonne when the price is in the $8000 range. It would be up to others to fine tune the results to their liking.

- Comprison with other graphite companies: You could compare ZEN and CCB, assuming that ZEN and CCB has similar graphite, vein-like, lump, or hydrothermal, etc... But the comparison would have to consider the "other factors" as discussed in my comments. (Personally, I would consider each deposit, lump or flakes, on its own merit).

Note that I purposedly compared Mason with Focus for the same reason (i.e. to put them on the same footing). These two companies indicated that they have flake graphite. ZEN was not involved in this discussion at all, since a lower price (less than $2000/tonne, and not at ~$8000/tonne) was used in the gold equivalent discussion for Mason and Focus.

In addition, the gold equivalent of 9.1gpt for 20.4% grade was taken directly from Mason Corp. Presentation (27% grade would bring this number to about 12gpt, which is impressive). They were "citing/crediting" (pointing finger at) TD Security Research Department (slide 19) for this conversion, which I would consider as too simplistic (if used without the caveats) and could lead to misinformation to a casual observer.

As discussed, it would be fine for them to compare the value of a graphite deposit with gold on a "ready-to-sell" basis, i.e. on the ground and fully processed to specifications.

- EA issues, if any: Yes, at this point we can only speculate. But the truth will come out in the end when all the paperwork and analyses for the EA are submitted for getting the required permits.

Cheers,

goldhunter