why is bmn so cheap, page-12

Ah, Tibbs, have to disagree with you I'm afraid - I think it's you who is misquoting. Let's see the whole quote:

"He believes those companies 'running around with the low grade deposits just won't cut the mustard.'

'You can forget hard rock mines proposing to mine at 200 parts per million [0.02 per cent uranium].'

'The only companies that are going to get [contract pricing] of $US60-$US70 a pound are the big companies and projects with 10- and 20-year mine lives. The little ones with 500 tonnes of uranium here or there over five- to seven-year mine lives are just going to have to sell into the [lower priced] spot market. And if the spot price stays where it is, the margins are going to be pretty skinny.'"

The way I read it is like this (my words in bold):

"...'You can forget hard rock mines proposing to mine at 200 parts per million [0.02 per cent uranium].'

(Of the rest,) 'The only companies that are going to get [contract pricing] of $US60-$US70 a pound are the big companies and projects with 10- and 20-year mine lives..."

You seem to be saying this (your words in bold) but it completely changes the sense of the article:

"...'You can forget hard rock mines proposing to mine at 200 parts per million [0.02 per cent uranium].'

(However, some of these low grade hard rock mines are still ok, plus) 'The only companies that are going to get [contract pricing] of $US60-$US70 a pound are the big companies and projects with 10- and 20-year mine lives..."

The key thing here is the quotation dismisses out of hand hard rock mines with 200ppm, and of the remainder smaller mines with 10- and 20- year life spans may get a life but will struggle to get the pricing right.