Although I understand most people's tendencies to look at and...

Although I understand most people's tendencies to look at and track spot price numbers for uranium and comparing it to economic metrics in feasibility studies, as it's commonly done for most other commodities, it's worth considering the spot price at its current levels is quite meaningless from an investment point of view (although I don't argue it's pointless from a short/medium-term trading point of view, as is obvious in the posts and sentiment displayed in this thread alone). If you believe prices are going to stay around this level or below, basically all the uranium companies on the ASX should only be worth a tiny fraction of what they are as they'll never return to production (with a few exceptions that have contracts signed or are fully funded to production).

The current spot prices just simply don't incentive new mines being built, and I think not even all the restart projects will be enough to cover the supply deficit that the uranium industry's been experiencing with the suppressed prices in the past decade. With all the nuclear reactor restarts and new builds, supply from new mines are going to have to be financed to power these reactors. But no one is going to build new mines $50/lb. A large number of mines on C&M won't even restart at $60/lb.

If you believe that the world is really going to be at a major uranium supply deficit that's going to *need* new uranium mines to come online, then there is widespread consensus that a price of $65 - $80 at a minimum is going to be required, depending on how much inflation has blown out CAPEX requirements. I believe most of the uranium companies are being valuated by the market as such at the moment.

To the comment about why invest in a uranium company vs. SPUT when it involves a variety of additional risks - I thought this would have been an obvious one when it's the same across basically all commodities: it's all about leverage. Purely as an example for illustration's sake and ignoring the fact that SPUT is trading at a discount at the moment, if spot price doubles to $95/lb, that's a 100% return on investment. Looking at PEN's DFS sensitivity analysis to uranium price, every $10/lb increase in spot price above their ~$65/lb base case increases NPV by $59m, which would make the NPV ~$302m (AUD ~$431m @ $0.70 AUD/USD) - 145% higher than their base case $65/lb NPV. What that actually translate to in terms of market cap though is anyone's guess.

Anyway, my aim here isn't to convince anyone whether PEN is overvalued or undervalued with its current market cap and today's DFS figures, but more so to point out the futility of trying to assess economic viability using spot prices at its current level. IMO, at face value, yes, the current market cap and DFS numbers don't match up or make sense. But that's mostly if you look at it through the lens of the spot price. The DFS also only takes into account 14.35m pounds in the LOM production - there's a further estimated ~39m pounds as part of Lance (although most of it is inferred and slightly lower grades) so I think the DFS figures potentially significantly understates the potential of the total resource at Lance.

In any case, I like the potential and have a bit of a bias for restart projects for the sunk costs of their existing infrastructure and hence lower CAPEX requirements to get into production. I've seen quite a few presentations and interviews by Wayne and he's generally quite conservative, which I think this DFS kinda reflects also. Topped up a bit at 18c today to reflect my sentiment.