Let's review your comments here Hoov, first, this statement:

Note the spelling, in situ values are never applied to industrial minerals that have not demonstrated a market.

ZEN has listed in their PEA values for their graphite in various markets that were obtained from the USGS and a Roskill study. I would say they have a demonstated market. You are free to object of course.

Next,

You do not have 1.5 million tonnes in your PEA.

You are right, we have 977k tons indicated and a further 441k tons inferred, total 1.418M tons so am I far off in rounding off to 1.5M tons, no. Was the RE done using Wittle which only captures the graphite that has economic benefit mined in an open pit only and gives zero value to everything else, yes. Was there material below the dykes that were not included in the Wittled RE, yes. Is the resource open at depth, yes. Your statement is true as it stands but we all know ZEN has much more than 1.5M tons.

Next,

You do not have nuclear grade.

Correct, that is why I wrote: And in a dream scenario where we get nuclear grade...Or what we now call graphene

So, I never said I had nuclear grade, not sure what you were trying to correct here.

Next,

Your math is meaningless, and intentionally deceptive.

My math relied on 5 numbers, 65M shares outsanding (could argue for 2M more FD I guess), 1.5M tons (see previous comment regarding this), and then valuation for our graphite: $8000 CAN which would be $6200 USD, lower than what was used in the PEA, $12,000 CAN which would be $9,300 USD and $16,000 CAN which would be $12,300 USD. Maybe high, maybe low, with graphene, I think these numbers are actually low.

Thanks for making me look harder at my numbers and making me realize I was probably too conservative.

ZEN has 2 issues that need to be dealt with conclusively, metallurgy and Capex funding. When those issues are taken care of appropriately, all this hard data kicks in and everyone watching ZEN knows it. Good luck accumulating shares when that happens!

Choo Choo,

G.