Just been looking at different opex numbers from other...

Just been looking at different opex numbers from other companies. We know Pen are miles ahead in regards to capex so I wont press on that to much. And yes I am about to compare two different extraction methods, but at the end of the day its the numbers that really matter.

Just take bmn for instance as one example for this exercise, and there are many others to choose from as well.

Expected capital costs of US$555 million.
Expected operating costs of US$38/lb U3O8 in the first five years, with an average life-of-mine cost of US$41/lb U3O8.

PFS estimates(and I could be wrong)

BMN Capex US$555M, Opex US$41/lb Av Life of mine

PEN Capex US$40M, Opex US$$28.3/lb Av Life of mine

So what do these opex numbers really imply.

I could be way off the mark here and would like others opinions. But there is nearly a 50% increase in operating costs here. So in my way of thinking, to put us at an even keel in regards to opex, then for every 1.5ml lbs U3O8/year that Pen suck out of the ground, bmn have to take out 2.25ml lbs U3O8/year to be on an even par.

So lets now translate that to size of resource so to speak.

Imo Pens 15ml lbs is equivalent to bmn having 22.5ml lbs.

or 76ml lbs working off the same numbers is equivalent to bmn having 114ml lbs.

Of course some of the big boys will be able to take out alot more uranium a year, and I say some, because not all will get there massive required funding needed to start up, but the overall amount taken out a year is irrelavent to this exercise anyway.

Just trying to highlight the benefits of low cost extraction in a different way.

NK