difference between the truth and whole truth, page-51

Yes Billt5 sample testing was taken. Nothing unusual and normal industry practice for sound economic reasoning, no company would conduct 100% testing for permeability and porosity, they do for grades of the resource being sought under the Jorc code.

What is overlooked, in fact being completely discounted by certain individuals is the historical data, in particular the latest data. Data verified by leading uranium and hydrological experts in this field of specialist engineering. It is simply erroneous to discount this information, the same data that will be used to bring Ross and Barber to Jorc status. Not sure about anyone else but I believe them over any forum poster.

WIM indicated have already that both Ross and Barber meet the criteria required for ISR.

Consider this from the Hartley report:

"Several criteria must be present in order for ISR to be viable:
1. The sandstone must be contained between two impermeable layers of shale of clay.
2. The sandstone orebody must have sufficient permeability to allow the injected oxygenated water solution to flow through it.
3. The orebody must be located below the water table in order for hydrostatic pressure to be maintained.
4. The deposit must be readily dissolvable in the oxygenated water solution."

PEN has already reported via WIM that all of this criteria has been met. No argument it is in writing from the company and where they got the information. Data verified by leading uranium and hydrological experts in this field of specialist engineering, not a forum poster or the CEO of a company, nor the tea lady or taxi driver.

Also I was referred to this information some time ago, suffice to say I did my homework before extending my PEN holdings. Lance is in the middle of the Powder River Basin.

Powder River Basin
"The aquifer is extensive, thick (up to 1,190 m thick), and is exposed at the land surface in most of the basin. The depositional environments of the geologic units included in the aquifer are generally terrestrial. The average sand content of this unit is 54 percent, indicating it could be an aquifer over most of the area."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984269/gwater.html

The water table at Lance is only 100ft below the surface with the resource 400ft+ below the surface. It layman terms what this means is that natural hydrostatic pressure will apply.

Also consider this:

There was logical reason behind PEN putting comments from Glenn Catchpole the CEO of Uranerz in a report regarding permeability and porosity. It showed how good Lance really was in comparison with nearby Uranerz. Almost 5 times better in fact using the best figures Glenn put up for the Uranerz ISR location in Wyoming, close to Lance and the PEN data.

Lance is 120Kms (to the north) away from Uranerz’ proposed Nichols and Hank leases. Lance is also a lot closer to the rail infrastructure of Gillette and Moorecroft just out of interest.

Back to permeability and porosity:

The CEO of Uranez talking about Nichols - "...the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) is less than 500 MD but is still adequate for solution mining."

This from PEN's announcement 21st July 2009

"Core Tests
Core Lab, a reservoir characterisation laboratory based in Denver, Colorado, has tested 24 core plugs taken from the four holes cored at Ross in 2008 for porosity, permeability and density. The samples taken from the uranium hosting sandstone demonstrated very high permeability’s and porosities, averaging 2,400 millidarcy’s (mD) and 42% porosity. The density determinations will be utilised in resource estimations planned for 2010."

Also consider this:

High porosity and permeability values in uranium-enriched sandstones are necessary for the efficient operation of ISR uranium recovery operations. Sandstone permeability’s in excess of 500 mD are acceptable in the ISR industry. Porosities in excess of 30% are very favourable for ISR recovery of uranium."
source: http://www.bourseinvestor.com/bi4/pd...104&f=20090721

So Nichols has 500mD and Lance has an average of 2,400 mD. Quite a difference there and confirmed.

Let's analyse a little more with some supported factual information.

As it turns out that article is well supported by PEN and in particular this statement from the article:

"In our case, we focused our acquisition activities in the Powder River Basin, which we know from our previous work. Most of those sands that are hosting uranium are indeed saturated with water." source: http://www.stockinterview.com/News/0...um-Mining.html

The Powder River Basin being where PEN is and also being the largest landholder in the location and growing. You are correct that the hydrological results will tell a story. A story very similar to what has been stated in the article you point out. The Powder River Basin has ample water supplies in contained aquifers. Well proven in the location that PEN is targeting.

A few notes on the subject of the Lance Project, Lance Formations, and NE Wyoming.

I have done my research over the last 3 years, along with a few learned colleagues who know far more than I do and the Lance Project is not what is being implied. It is well suited to ISR and PEN' own initial studies and via WIM has confirmed this. The Hydrological test results are also expected to confirm Lance being amenable to ISR as already stated by PEN.

Now a little comparitive data:

Cretaceous
Upper Cretaceous
Lance Formation
"North Wyoming--thick-bedded buff sandstone and drab to green shale; thin conglomerate lenses.... Northeast Wyoming--brown and gray sandstone and shale; thin coal and carbonaceous shale beds."3

Generally yields less than 76 L/min, but yields of several hundred liters per minute may be possible from the complete section of the formation in Powder River Basin.

Dissolved-solids concentrations of historical water samples taken in the Bighorn Basin ranged from 591 to 1,860 mg/L.

Dissolved-solids concentrations of historical water samples taken in the Powder River Basin ranged from about 200 to more than 2,000 mg/L, but commonly ranged between 500 and 1,500 mg/L."
source: http://pubs.usgs.gov


Lance Project
Background / Geology Notes
Project Name Lance Uranium Project
Location Gillette, 55km NE of
Wyoming, United States

Project Type Insitu Leach
Project Status Pre-feasibility
Commodities uranium

"the Sundance* prospect is the Lance Formation, of upper Cretaceous age. It consists of fluvial channel sandstones, inter-channel mudstones, claystones, and sandstones. The sandstones are generally fine-grained, friable, and occur in beds up to 7.6m thick, and are quartzose to feldspathic in composition.

At Oshoto* there are multiple roll front systems that are stacked above each other, but in separate sandstone units. This positioning of these geochemical cells, generally one atop another, has created thick zones of uranium mineralisation (in the range of 0.05% U3O8) that were the subject of the pilot plant development program undertaken by the NuBeth JV. "
source: http://www.intierra.com/profiles/pro...%20Project.htm


• Sundance is now called the Lance project 100% owned by PEN
• Oshoto is at Lance


Also consider this again from Glenn Catchpole. I have had the same conversation with Gus Simpson after I read this some time ago. General in nature but fact that any driller, or anyone with any knowledge of mining will tell you.

"StockInterview: Is there any way of detecting the problem in advance, before you discover you've got an inadequately saturated formation?

Glenn Catchpole: When you are drilling an exploration hole, the driller knows when he encounters any water at all. If he doesn't get any water, you know right away, you've got a problem very early on. When the driller starts out, he can start drilling with air. If he encounters water in his drilling, then he's going to switch over to drilling mud to carry the cuttings. As he's drilling a hole, he is creating cuttings. He has to have a mud slurry in order to carry those cuttings out of the hole. An experienced driller will have a good feel for how much water he's encountered. These drillers have worked all over Wyoming; they've got some feel for the local geology and what the water situation might be."
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article716.html

Does anyone truly believe PEN is continuing to develop Lance and the drillers are not encountering water? To think that would be erroneous and naive.

As I began this post with PEN is relying on current and historical data verified by leading uranium and hydrological experts in this field of specialist engineering. It is simply erroneous to discount this information, the same data that will be used to bring Ross and Barber to Jorc status.

Not sure about anyone else but I believe them over a HC poster, especially one who chooses to denigrate individuals to shore up a generalist subjective view. Without once contacting the company or people concerned.

This post won't get multiples of thumbs a certain poster cares so dearly for, however it is factual "the truth", based on reported data and freely available information...DYOR

JJ has it right as well. Discounting what he is saying is like saying only Newman has Iron Ore and the rest of the Pilbara is barren. Quite simply laughable and displaying a complete lack of mining knowledge.





Give enough rope....the worm is near