james58 what mining process did the article refer to?So many...

james58 what mining process did the article refer to?

So many times we see these articles that seem to bundle all uranium mines into one basket. One size fits all...

To make a "uranium mine" viable you need to look at all risk factors and the processing method, not just "pounds (tons) in the ground"

It is a major flaw of most analysts with uranium with very few of them having intimate (in some cases any) knowledge of the very low cost ISR processing methodology.

I have even read reports (and many HC posters) confusing heap leaching with ISR and many more comparing uranium companies of all processing types but using conventional mining metrics. That is so far wrong it isn't funny.

compare apples with apples, not oranges with eggs!

ISR completely blows the myth of "pounds (tons) in the ground".

Conventional mining needs very high grades and lots of resource as the Opex and Capex are so much higher.

ISR (Lance/PEN) has no such problem and would still make money where other conventional mines would simply close. Or as PNN has done and be placed on hold.

All that said though, Lance is indicating it has far more than your article suggests, but at a far lower recovery cost than most.

The sooner people generally and so analysts get their heads around this and understand ISR, the sooner they will start to realise ISR is a far superior process to conventional mining and is definitely not heap leaching.