Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-43

With all due respect VI123, you are not qualified to answer. I have no intention in getting into a shouting match with someone who's knowledge base is founded on blind acceptance of company supplied marketing material and a spot of Wikipedia metallurgy research. I do this for a living.

"It is a well-known fact that acid is a better solution for Uranium ISR mining then Alkaline. Acid is more corrosive!" Ignorant statement and further evidence of your lay understanding of uranium processing - every US operation from the start of ISR processing in the 1970's disagrees with that statement. Read the history of ISR in the USA and maybe then you'll understand the decision to proceed down the alkaline leaching route. You might come across a few articles from a certain Ralph Knode (familiar to you?) who was part of the development of alkaline processing chemistry in the early years - there's a lot of logical discussion of why acid processing was not developed. Read some of these paper mate. You'll find that lixiviant selection is a critical decision and entirely ore specific. One size does not fit all.

"The plant does work, in fact produces Uranium." Semantics VI123. Lance produces uranium at an average of 22.5% of nameplate capacity. That is an abject failure mate and you know it. Of course that's why PEN is bleeding cash and not making profit and not providing shareholder return.

The uranium bear market has never been a pillar of my criticism of PEN, my argument has been on technical issues . Straw man.

I honestly cannot identify one announcement/outcome since production began at Lance to write home about. Ok, maybe one - the decision to sell Karoo was a good one (no buyer though). I'm not going to fabricate positive stuff - what purpose does that serve? I'll acknowledge the good stuff as and when it arrives.