Uranium is about to go nuclear, page-23

Ura_bull, I reckon PEN will continue to struggle - their production issues are obvious to me and have been swept under the carpet by the Stage 1.5 narrative, which I do not buy. I can see why others not knowledgeable in extractive metallurgy and production accept this strategy as reasonable (no criticism here) but the results to date, especially the early results, do not suggest to me, a project without material technical problems. In previous posts I have suggested chemistry as the culprit but of course the poor production profile could also be due to sub-optimal (poor?) lixiviant permeability/flowrate through the ore zones. However, if I prosecute this point I have to admit that PEN has been less-than-truthful in their announcements to the ASX, where they have stated that lixiviant permeability through the ore zone is "as per design." Am I prepared to admit this? Whatever the cause, chemistry or hydraulics, building sinking more injection/production wells and constructing more header houses is a band-aid. At some point, the abandoned uranium (adjacent to the abandoned wells) will destroy the resource estimate and the revenue generating asset will be toast.

So, until these production issues are resolved (can they be resolved without significant additional capital outlay), I see trouble for PEN. If they cannot resolve these technical issues, then PEN will suffer severe reputation damage and the chances of Lance Stage 2/3 and Karoo going ahead will be minuscule. I think PEN should sell Karoo anyway.

As for the future of uranium, Zubana's post above reflects my position precisely.

Disclaimer: The above is my considered opinion based on published data and years of experience. I am also quite happy to be wrong on all accounts and promise not to be offended or insulted.