PEN - Peninsula Energy

[hangseng]

H/S

T/A used correctly is a map.
(Not many T/As are good exponents they have inferior maps.)

If the map doesn't pan out then you do something else.
Everyone who uses T/A will be wrong--Im wrong often.
Its what you do when your both correct and in correct that matters.

Thats why F/A people think T/A traders are like women---changing their minds like they are switching pairs of shoes.

The evidence shown to a T/A will alter daily.
For some of us every minute.

Its about
Prove
Disprove
Prove
Disprove.

As you'll note I have a point where the analysis is wrong and a point where my risk to profit is un acceptable---to me!--why--because I actually trade!

Everyone who uses T/A will be wrong--Im wrong often.

Me included occasionally, now you have my respectful attention on that comment.

You aren't the only one that trades though tech so don't think you are special doing so. You have company whether you like it or not. I may not trade often, in fact I know compared to some I hardly ever trade, but I do when I see a worthwhile setup for me. I don't trade daily just for the heck of it as some seem to.

Nice and simple uncomplicated TA and sound fundamentals seem to be doing it for me. The combination of the two IMO is a winner, one without the other is definitely not for me. Akin to dart throwing with dark glasses and the lights out IMO. But that's what makes the market we all have individual strategies and risk profiles.

 

[chakvetadze]

"Nice and simple uncomplicated TA and sound fundamentals seem to be doing it for me. The combination of the two IMO is a winner, one without the other is definitely not for me."

Hangseng,
Then why did you hold from double digits down to sub 3c? Technically there were many sell signals along the way. You ignored all of them and stood in front of the moving train.

 

[tech/a]

"Nice and simple uncomplicated TA and sound fundamentals seem to be doing it for me. The combination of the two IMO is a winner, one without the other is definitely not for me."

Hangseng,
Then why did you hold from double digits down to sub 3c? Technically there were many sell signals along the way. You ignored all of them and stood in front of the moving train.

And Fundamentally
If you don't USE either ------

Good question

 

[hangseng]

"Nice and simple uncomplicated TA and sound fundamentals seem to be doing it for me. The combination of the two IMO is a winner, one without the other is definitely not for me."

Hangseng,
Then why did you hold from double digits down to sub 3c? Technically there were many sell signals along the way. You ignored all of them and stood in front of the moving train.

chak, another that wants to jump on the have a go at HS brigade.

You don't know me, nor do you KNOW what I did and did not do. You like so many others have no idea what I did, or do. You just like to have a go and make assumptive statements without any idea at all.

Here is something novel, why not post on the stock as this is "Aussie STOCK forums" is it not.

If you can't contribute meanigful TA or FA, as seemingly you can't by that post, then why post at all.

 

[tech/a]

If you can't contribute meanigful TA or FA, as seemingly you can't by that post, then why post at all.

Sound advice you should take it.

 

[Chalea]

You don't know me, nor do you KNOW what I did and did not do. You like so many others have no idea what I did, or do. You just like to have a go and make assumptive statements without any idea at all.

If you can't contribute meanigful TA or FA, as seemingly you can't by that post, then why post at all.

Help me here, I'm looking for some "meanigful" (sic) TA or FA...

"I have long waited for this day...

Ever wondered why I never once wavered in my belief in PEN?

Why my belief that a small company I came across that was seemingly unloved by the market had outstanding management and potential?

Why my belief that nuclear energy was the way of the future world energy needs and that the uranium price would rebound strongly?

Why my belief that ISR mining would win ahead of conventional mining die to the notably lower Opex and Capex of this mining process?

Why my unwavering belief that both 'Sundance' (now the Lance Project, Wyoming) and Karoo S.A. would turn a penny dreadful play thing of book posting day traders into a company of investment and real investors?

Why my belief in my own research and continuing faith in myself that I had made the right decision to invest so much into PEN?

Why I ignored the negative sentiment and noise of forums and analysts that simply called it wrong regarding the uranium industry?

Why I challenged openly the many that bagged PEN (and me) and tried to personally discredit the MD Gus Simpson, a person I now admire and respect greatly. Many of them with blatantly false information and some even openly lying under the guise of multi-nics?

Why I continued to buy when PEN was sold off and never once panicked and tried to convince others not to let negative sentiment get to them and just believe in their own research.

Why when others were saying sell as PEN went down, I was buying?


Simple...

Dare to believe in yourself and your dreams...Just believe."


Forgive me for not Drinking the Kool-Aid!!!

:bananasmi:bananasmi:bananasmi

 

[hangseng]

Sound advice you should take it.

Your post is what then tech, TA or FA? Pointless crap again and simply another dig is what it is, also nothing to do with PEN. This is the PEN thread I take it, not the tech/a gossip column.

PEN is now looking very positive and heading into a key fundamental reporting period, as I stated previously. On the back of this I can see PEN giving the next resistance levels a rather hefty nudge after 5c getting good support today. With 5.9/6c being the first that will take some doing to break through. Then if it breaks 7/7.2 and then on the the controversial 8c mark, the directors first performance bonus target.

I wonder why the directors have been buying of late, three of them and one of them twice.

BOT now taking an interest again in PENOA, of which am now of the opinion will in the main get converted to PEN as PEN rises into the expiry period.

James Dines now talking of $130 uranium and PEN like all U stocks following the U price in synch.

Interesting times ahead I can see, hopefully with some meaningful TA/FA discussion.


Chalea are you writing a biography or do you have a target date for your "prediction" of PEN going lower? This is going to be interesting. All the time you called PEN to 2c, PEN kept rising all the way to 15.5. So what is to be this time around in the Chalea tea leaves?

 

[Miner]

Help me here, I'm looking for some "meanigful" (sic) TA or FA...

"I have long waited for this day...

Ever wondered why I never once wavered in my belief in PEN?

Why my belief that a small company I came across that was seemingly unloved by the market had outstanding management and potential?

Why my belief that nuclear energy was the way of the future world energy needs and that the uranium price would rebound strongly?

Why my belief that ISR mining would win ahead of conventional mining die to the notably lower Opex and Capex of this mining process?

Why my unwavering belief that both 'Sundance' (now the Lance Project, Wyoming) and Karoo S.A. would turn a penny dreadful play thing of book posting day traders into a company of investment and real investors?

Why my belief in my own research and continuing faith in myself that I had made the right decision to invest so much into PEN?

Why I ignored the negative sentiment and noise of forums and analysts that simply called it wrong regarding the uranium industry?

Why I challenged openly the many that bagged PEN (and me) and tried to personally discredit the MD Gus Simpson, a person I now admire and respect greatly. Many of them with blatantly false information and some even openly lying under the guise of multi-nics?

Why I continued to buy when PEN was sold off and never once panicked and tried to convince others not to let negative sentiment get to them and just believe in their own research.

Why when others were saying sell as PEN went down, I was buying?


Simple...

Dare to believe in yourself and your dreams...Just believe."


Forgive me for not Drinking the Kool-Aid!!!

:bananasmi:bananasmi:bananasmi

Please return to PEN with some constructive input.
Please stop your negative shells.
PEN has rose contrary to your speculative charting .
Either you are in or out, but no pessism or personal vendatta please.
ASF is downsliding now compared it was one year back . One of the reasons quality of posters.
You can send abusive targets to me - but I don't care.
Once again please put some constructive on PEN. I do when I can otherwise stay on side line.

Thanks for your understanding and team spirit

 

[Chalea]

Chalea are you writing a biography or do you have a target date for your "prediction" of PEN going lower? This is going to be interesting. All the time you called PEN to 2c, PEN kept rising all the way to 15.5. So what is to be this time around in the Chalea tea leaves?

Am I missing something here?

Didn't PEN hit 2.5c last month, as predicted?

It will revisit that level imminently as this chart clearly shows!

Just believe...



:bananasmi

 

[Ubershrewd]

Chalea, your repeated mockery of 'imminently' is no longer relevant as that is the past. You'd do your credibility some good by giving a timeframe for your price predictions as Hangseng has suggested.

 

[Chalea]

Chalea, your repeated mockery of 'imminently' is no longer relevant as that is the past. You'd do your credibility some good by giving a timeframe for your price predictions as Hangseng has suggested.

My credibility on this thread is preeminent...

 

[notting]

Credibility goes to those who believe in themselves and their analysis enough to have traded it and better still made money on it.
Other wise your just a masterbeta- someone who puts their hand in their pocket and brings it out wet and trembling rather than with money in it to put on the table and do it for real!!
Ya all know which one you are:bananasmi

 

[Chalea]

Credibility goes to those who believe in themselves and their analysis enough to have traded it and better still made money on it.
Other wise your just a masterbeta- someone who puts their hand in their pocket and brings it out wet and trembling rather than with money in it to put on the table and do it for real!!
Ya all know which one you are:bananasmi

You don't know me, nor do you KNOW what I did and did not do. You like so many others have no idea what I did, or do. You just like to have a go and make assumptive statements without any idea at all.

mmm... Kool-Aid :drink:

 

[Chalea]

"Don’t get carried away with uranium rally. After months of dreadful performance, it is likely that this rally is somewhat premature and that recent gains may be pared back if the uranium spot price does not back up the equity gains”...
...excess inventories in Japan pose a risk to prices, as does a potential increase in sales by the U.S. government."Link

"Japan will lose its last nuclear- generated power in April at the current rate of shutting down reactors for safety checks, cheering opponents of the industry after the Fukushima disaster...

“If we experience a zero-nuclear situation the argument that we don’t need nuclear power anymore will be stronger,”"

Link

The imminent mountain of excess uranium must surely have a negative impact on the price of uranium.

It will undoubtedly cause PEN's 3.0c gap to be filled!

:bananasmi

 

[Chalea]

“we don’t need nuclear power anymore”

:microwave

 

[mickqld]

Maybe we should just turn out all the lights.

I know if I had to live next to either a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant which one I would choose. The media hysteria over Fukushima is a joke compared to the cancers and deaths being caused by coal fired power stations.




http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste




Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

By Mara Hvistendahl | December 13, 2007 |115
CONCENTRATED RADIATION: By burning coal into ash, power plants concentrate the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the black rock.Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant””a by-product from burning coal for electricity””carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"””the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks””might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow””in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant””increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants””they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."

Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants””at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash””a by-product from burning coal for power””and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant””a by-product from burning coal for electricity””carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage

 

[tech/a]

Chugging along as expected.
Gap acted as support.

 

[skyQuake]

Chugging along as expected.
Gap acted as support.

Yup looks good. Suspect the selling was from appendix 3b oppies exercise sellers.

 

[Chalea]

I know if I had to live next to either a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant which one I would choose.

So do I...



:bad:

 

[mickqld]

So do I...

View attachment 45911

View attachment 45912 :bad:

Yep one spews out radiation every second of every day and one spews out radiation only if there is a once in a hundred year natural disaster.