Perth shareholder info sesh, page-28

"But In my opinion, a more believable answer would/should have been thus:

"Sorry, I did not know that or fully comprehend the permutations of permeability or porosity. I did however just go out and Google the sheet of ISR mining to catch up.

And due to my inability to concede this error, I stand by my prior claim...just via a different assumption, that is unprovable because our only real measuring stick is the current market price."

The height of arrogance Gav - thinking you can deign the perfect answer for me!

But of course, far from perfect. Could you or one of the dipsticks who thumbed you for this nonsense like to elaborate on what you are getting at?

Please explain how (and with the appropriate metrics) just how the "permutations of permeability or porosity" undermine my statement that the URZ grades are higher. In other words, please elaborate on how and by how much the 'permeability or porosity' are better at PEN's properties than they are at URZ's.

Having then done that, please explain the 'error' that I need to concede.

Then please explain why my 'different assumption' (i.e. that a 60% higher GT implies a higher resource value) is 'unprovable'.

In doing that can you please explain how a higher GT (when other relevant factors including permeability or porosity are equal) does NOT result in lower proving costs and lower resource recovery costs?

Gav, your words are just cheap point-scoring...nothing more.