Firstly you've already missed that BMN's opex has been revised...

Firstly you've already missed that BMN's opex has been revised down to $38/lb as Smity posted earlier. Thats a 10% difference youre choosing to ignore.

Secondly you're assigning P/E's and attributes way ahead of time.

"That needs to be dissected, justified and found."
I have no idea what you are trying to get to with this point other than to defend your position. The CAPEX number will be dissected and justified in some form or another in the DFS and already has been explained in the PFS. The main justification is far greater resource volume and completely different approach to extraction. With that CAPEX BMN would be producing 5-7mlbs/year for 20+ years making it a non-trivial mine.

Thirdly, BMN have previously stated that the NPV is positive at $70/lb, which according to your source for uranium prices would make the project viable at $70-$75/lb

As I said - PEN is probably less risky, and that is reflected in the market capitalisation already. PEN's EV/lb is far higher than BMN.

You are talking $150m+ / 60mlbs vs $55m / 200+mlbs. Put in laymans terms its
PEN $2.50 EV/lb
BMN $0.275 EV/lb

On that basis the risks (viability, funding, partnership, and sovereign risk) you are talking about is ALREADY well and truly factored into the price of both stocks. According to the pricing the risk difference is in the ball park of 5 to 1 (factoring in some cost difference to cover OPEX).

If the uranium sector as a whole recovers BMN stands to be a significantly more profitable investment at todays prices.

If the uranium sector does not recover and long term prices drop to $60/lb, then PEN is clearly the far better option.

Which you buy depends on your risk appetite and size desire for high % increases.

I dont see the point of attacking BMN because you like PEN. Especially when youre attacking BMN on the basis of incomplete and incorrect information.