Pen Imo is fast reaching that stage now where it will be able to...

Pen Imo is fast reaching that stage now where it will be able to challenge most new uranium projects as far as stacking up profitable wise.

I was kind of hoping for a better response from wanelad on BMN than just a T/A's view(Imo BMN dropped for a very good reason), I'm actually looking for a serious debate and keen to get some real F/A comparisons with other uranium companies as far as theirs and Pens projects viability goes. I personally think Pen is going to be unchangable soon in that regard. Thats why I am encouraging debate on it.

AGS had a very short payback period on its jointly owned project in Australia and was in my mind better than Pen in that regard, but now there is questions on that projects scheduled timeframe.

Very rare for a junior(Pen) to already have finance sorted for production. Even more rare for a junior to take a project all the way whilst retaining 100% control of it.

Whats DYL's feasability on there namibian projects going to be like.

Whats the actually quality of these jorcs worked off a 100ppm cutoff grade. Correct me if I'm wrong(I'm not a geologist), but the way I read it, is that the level of certainty of resource is fairly low with these grades used. Sure you can easily double the jorc size this way, even triple it sometimes(makes the project sound big), but the quality is jepordized Imo. Something Pen is not prepared to do. (Which I don't think is fully appreciated in the market, YET!!)

I don't think it won't be long now before us Pen holders will really have some strong fundamental information on Pen to back up any serious discussion on how good Lance is compared to other projects. Profit, I'm talking.



NK