Rennie69,

A few points in response.  First how big is the commercial graphene market today? As I understand it there are no significant graphene users today, so where would we sell the stuff if we were mining now. We have been informed that there are a number of corporations looking at our material.  I believe Ballard has been mentioned by name and as I recall from the details in another news release though not mentioned by name it seemed pretty clear that Cabot was also working with our material.  I have worked in research and develpment and I understand that there are always non-disclosure agreements that greatly restrict what can be shared especially when it comes to commercial enterprises.  I mean most of these companies are not even willing to be named, do you expect to get monthly updates from them on how thier research is progressing?  My expectation is that we won't hear a peep until someone puts an offer on the table.  

My view is that it looks like graphene is the next big thing in terms of material science.  Research is going on on many fronts to determine how this new material can be commercialized.  Zenyetta leadership is working with multiple organizations around the world to ensure our unique material is incorporated into these new technologies when they go commercial.  To me Zenyetta management is following the right course of action to maximise value.  

With regard to the 5% dissident group I don't understand what their game plan really is.  Can they do things better - I doubt it.  Do they think they are helping the share price with thier public slander of present management?  (I have no problem with folks questioning management capability but some of what I have read goes way beyond respectfull analysis.) Is this public name calling helping management to raise money?  We have folks that have been working in this rapidly evolving space for a few years now, I don't want to start training a new management group, especially one whose motivations I find suspect.

And how about this.  It is a matter of public record that Mr. Eveleigh owns about 8% of the company.  Assuming the dissident group were successful in replacing him he could call for a special shareholders meeting every month and we could never get anything done.    In my view the call for an Extrodinary General Meeting is a distraction from our mission and is suppressing our share price.

Respectfully,

Pilgrim