Thanks Mudguts. I am familiar with the contents of the...

Thanks Mudguts. I am familiar with the contents of the quarterly. I was (very) under-whelmed with the update of Lance Stage 1 presented in the quarterly - in my view no substantial information apart from a few vague statements about "meeting expectation". Further, this news is 6 weeks old and therefore an inaccurate reflection of current operational performance. Perhaps my definition of "information of substance" differs from yours, and that's ok. however, I would be interested to be updated on the technical aspects of Lance Stage 1, which has to be seen as the company maker for PEN. For example:

1) Latest production well flow rates. Have the flow rates "that meet expectation" been maintained? If yes, then this is positive. If no, then this is a problem and MAY indicate a potential permeability issue that could be related to the reaction chemistry of the system (there are many other things that affect well flow rates)
2) Ion exchange performance - resin loading capacity and efficiency. Are the parameters set out in the project design criteria being achieved?
3) Has any resin left site for toll treatment and if so, what was the outcome?
4) Has yellowcake been produced during production ramp up and if so, is the product quality within converter penalty and reject specifications?
5) Are the reagent make-up systems working as per the project design criteria? No reagents............no product, it's as simple as that. Even more pertinent in the PEN context as their design incorporates on-site reagent regeneration. If this technology is not working this is a big problem.

I could go on but I think you get my drift. It's obvious to me that success at Lance Stage 1 will make or break PEN - forget Stage 2 or 3, especially forget Karoo for now. This is important information to disseminate so investors can do their own analysis and make an investment decision. Without it, an informed decision is not possible.

Cheers.