To: I_C_Deadpeople who wrote (2888 ) 9/3/2013 3:02:49 PM From: Claude Cormier 1 RecommendationRecommended By dantin45
Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22856 But a good analyst SHOULD be looking at companies such as ZEN where they can do some leg work and provide clients with a valid assessment of possible value versus risk. I agree, you are right, and this is what I have been doing. I started late, but better late than never. At this point in time, I just think that the kind of assumptions I could make on the target market do not allow me to make a "valid" assessment. I can make a good case on the size of the resource, and get a reasonable one on the costs, but it ain't possible on the target market before. "Commercial Verification" is one of the risks listed in Roth's report. IMO, it is the most important risk, by several order of magnitude compared to others. One that justifies more prudence. There is no such risk with precious and base metals as well as some other industrial minerals. Here we have two items that are unique: The graphite market and ZEN's graphite deposit. This is what makes the play exciting, but at the same time a lot more speculative. Well...that is my opinion.And I disagree somewhat on the 'risk' here versus say a gold property or oil property. Sure, the resource price and market are known but analysts and newsletter writers have been very slow at recognizing other risks such as political, governmental and geopolitical. Put apart these other risks, and lets take only a gold deposit in Ontario and ZEN'S Albany deposit. Consider only the resource price and market. Doing a PEA on the gold deposit is by far a much easier thing to do than for the graphite deposit. At least if you want to reach a similar level of confidence.