dfs clarification, page-3

Assuming

( which is apparently a very accurate method of calculation)

That SimonR1979's post is from HQ, and I am in no way doubting it's autheticity.

Can you see any issue, or glaring difference between the two.?
-----------------------------------------------------------

This courtesy of Binbin's post


On the 12 September 2011, after much hype, delay and controversy (telling shareholders that the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) was 'imminent' and giving shareholders the impression that the DFS was going to be better than expected), PEN finally released a disappointing 'PRELIMINARY' DFS. It was clear (at least to me anyway) that PEN had failed to convert sufficient inferred resources to indicated in time and failed to prove the feasibility of the 'LANCE' project which resulted in NuCore, a strategic investor that was supposed to provide funding for the Lance project, walking away.


At the end of that announcement in Sept 2011, the following was stated:
"FULL 'DEFINITIVE' Feasibility Study (DFS) results to be published following completion of owners review, optimisation work and expanded economic assessment".

-----------------------------------------------------------

From HQ


The Feasibility Study on the Lance Projects (details released today) is the study. In all ISR projects such as this the cost is prohibitive to undertake the necessary drilling to undertake a "definitive feasibility study" over the entire project. That is why we have progressively increased the size of the project based on the Definitive Feasibility Study at Ross (as per the Lyntek Study) and now through TREC to cover the first three production units.

It is this study that will be the basis for project financing.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Black and white is it not !!!!!!!!!!!!!


SwissB