PEN - Peninsula Energy

[Karlos68]

Garpul Gumnut and hangseng..........I have read your derogatory comments/accusations toward myself.......As I am working towards replying in a mature adult like response, I shall provide a mature response in time.....I would reply tonight but it is Friday night, I have had a few JBs and I do not wish to make an accusation which may prove to be misleading/influential to many holders of PEN stock. Some day I hope we can all be as one. God bless your souls and I shall provide my thoughts when time allows.

 

[Trembling Hand]

.....I would reply tonight but it is Friday night, I have had a few JBs

Oh dear mate. I would get rid of that fridge full of that rubbish :alcohol:

Its doing you about as much good as the OBV......

 

[barney]

Possibly on the verge of one of the most positive indicators for PEN, conversion of PALA and director PENOA's. IMO they will but I guess we just have to wait and see what transpires over the next couple of weeks.

Right on queue again HS ....... Directors converting, and PALA underwriting whatever shortfall they can get their hands on ....... positive action.

Its doing you about as much good as the OBV......

Lol ......

 

[hangseng]

=barney;708339]Right on queue again HS ....... Directors converting, and PALA underwriting whatever shortfall they can get their hands on ....... positive action.

I was always of the opinion PALA and the directors would convert their PENOA. What has surprised me and I am sure others is PALA underwriting the balance that others don't take up. Yes most definitely a positive signal.

Along with directors buying at market since last december it is clear they are very confident as to where this is heading even if some retail shareholders can't for whatever reason. Can't blame some being impatient and moving on but hey that is the market and will always occur. I remain steadfast in my (now seemingly minority) view that this will prove to be an outstanding investment.

Nobody can argue it has been a traders play thing for a very long time and subject to much volatilty and ridicule. But todays announcement IMO once again displays my contrarian view to stick with this will win out in the end.

Fastracking Lance and early order of long lead items. IMO also they will carry out a lot of offsite modularisation to expedite onsite construction activity. Miner (and any other engineer involved in projects) if you are reading this I am sure you know what I mean.

Next off the rank Permit to Mine of which is clearly very near now.

Smiling today...

 

[Miner]

I was always of the opinion PALA and the directors would convert their PENOA. What has surprised me and I am sure others is PALA underwriting the balance that others don't take up. Yes most definitely a positive signal.

Along with directors buying at market since last december it is clear they are very confident as to where this is heading even if some retail shareholders can't for whatever reason. Can't blame some being impatient and moving on but hey that is the market and will always occur. I remain steadfast in my (now seemingly minority) view that this will prove to be an outstanding investment.

Nobody can argue it has been a traders play thing for a very long time and subject to much volatilty and ridicule. But todays announcement IMO once again displays my contrarian view to stick with this will win out in the end.

Fastracking Lance and early order of long lead items. IMO also they will carry out a lot of offsite modularisation to expedite onsite construction activity. Miner (and any other engineer involved in projects) if you are reading this I am sure you know what I mean.

Next off the rank Permit to Mine of which is clearly very near now.

Smiling today...:

Hi HS
Yes, I do follow PEN threads just not in ASX but also regular emails come from Tania of PEN.
I have partially unloaded my PEN to make some profit (to be wasted on AYN purchase at the double of current price ) but I share your views. It is not my wishful thought or betting, but with constant progress with project progress, I am just waiting for 2013 to see some thing to pay back heavily through PEN.

Gestation periods are always painful so PEN is no different.
Being a typical miner with a shovel in head (and no brainer) I am less stressed with my lack of knowledge to read charts and graphs posted by Technical Wizards on PEN

 

[Stormtrooper]

Update on the top 20 holder. A bit of musical chairs but also it seems we have a new player.

Welcome Neoman Pty Ltd with 7,676,365..

Does anybody on the thread have access to CRAA enquiry so that we can see who the directors of this company are (as I am too tight to stop the search fee

Did a quick side by side comparison for April & May top 20 holders. Hopefully didn't make an error transposing

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Update on the top 20 holder. A bit of musical chairs but also it seems we have a new player.

Welcome Neoman Pty Ltd with 7,676,365..

Does anybody on the thread have access to CRAA enquiry so that we can see who the directors of this company are (as I am too tight to stop the search fee

Did a quick side by side comparison for April & May top 20 holders. Hopefully didn't make an error transposing

View attachment 47278

I have a bespoke pair of pyjamas which I had measured and made by Neoman Pty Ltd. while visiting some colourful racing identities in the Hunter Valley last month.

And a fine set of PJ's they are.

So for PEN investors, relax.

Your money will sleep well.

gg

 

[hangseng]

Let's see what happens when the inevitable awakening comes, and how many get caught napping

http://seekingalpha.com/article/391711-why-uranium-could-go-to-200-and-beyond

http://seekingalpha.com/article/618...-why-uranium-prices-are-headed-higher-quickly

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Unfortunately I cannot be as confident about PEN as hangseng.

It is a doggie stock on the way down.

A chart.

Volume and price have decreased since February.

It looks not good.

It may recover in the short term, but unless the uranium price goes ballistic it will remain a stock stuck in the dreams of it's holders.

It is a good stock for short term trading as tech/a has indicated and proven.

gg

 

[Stormtrooper]

Unfortunately I cannot be as confident about PEN as hangseng.

It is a doggie stock on the way down.

A chart.

Volume and price have decreased since February.

It looks not good.

It may recover in the short term, but unless the uranium price goes ballistic it will remain a stock stuck in the dreams of it's holders.

It is a good stock for short term trading as tech/a has indicated and proven.

gg

It's hard to agree with alot of your points above. re it's a doggy stock. I think you'll find most stocks are 'doggy' stocks based on current market sentiment. Even the good ol blue chip don't look so solid any more.

Falling on low volume is GOOD not bad. There is no rush for the door. People are holding tight. There will allways be sellers for what ever reason, just as inthe current housing market there are still sellers..because they have to, personal needs etc.

Market turmoil, high market volitility & in Pens' case oa expiry , EOFY in Aust, & some extended time lines are all putting pressure onthe share price & even with these issue the volume is light.

However take a step back & look at Pen in the light of day with no debt, OA's now underwritten, improving market U sentiment, cash in Bank (soon to be an extra $11m) & expectations for funding/ permits, Karoo all expected inthe upcoming 6 months, one would think that we are nearing aturning point & this is supported by the fact the options are now underwritten

Todays underwriting of the oa's has put a line in the sand so to speak. The underwriters are geting the options for nix & fully paids are costing them 3 cents. Whilst they are paid (handsomely) for their services, one would think that due sufficient due diligence has been done by the underwriters (have a look at who they are & relationship to Pen) & one can see they would be in a position to know a tad more than the average punter. Will they hold for a sort term, medium term or long term?? Who knows, but what ever time line they are working on, you can bet they are not planning to short the stock, they are in at 3c & going long.

Another $11m (ish) into the coffers & did I say no debt. A lot of companies would be like to be in that position.

Yes, we are still going to be subject to what ever systemic failure or otherwise occurs in Europe, however I'll call 3 as the bottom.....unless Greece & Spain fail as the underwriting clause . But the underwriters are happy with the risk at this level then so am I.

Here's a chart I did up a while ago showing a correlation between Pens' share price at or around the end of financial year, (it is 2 screen shot pasted together asbest I could henc ewhy the lines are not perfectly alligned). You can see Pen in most cases (3 out of the last 4 years) it drops during June only to come back strong. This year we have pending announcements in the new financial year, which will hopefully springboard up to greater heights.

I can't see why this year would be any different.

 

[Miner]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-16/japan-pm-orders-nuclear-restart-amid-protests/4074818

as published by ABC website - for the cynical people.
God bless Japan and its PM to bless PEN and its holders

 

[hangseng]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-16/japan-pm-orders-nuclear-restart-amid-protests/4074818

as published by ABC website - for the cynical people.
God bless Japan and its PM to bless PEN and its holders

It was always going to happen Miner, I have held that view ever since they began shutting them down, It was illogocal, ill conceived and a populist knee jerk reaction. It gave no thought to the energy needs of the country and the plain and simple fact they could not afford to keep them shutdown as the country is not in any financial postion to create an alternative source.

As I keep stating, the supply/demand imbalance will begin to kick in eventually and the naysayers will become the inevitable herd chasing uranium stocks once again. PEN will be perfectly positioned when it occurs, as will I.

Only a matter of time.


"Construction projects already underway should see China bring online some 27 new reactors by the end of 2015 in addition to the 15 units currently in operation."

Latest Chinese nuclear milestone

www.world-nuclear-news.org
13 June 2012

"Yangjiang 3 is the latest Chinese nuclear power reactor to see the emplacement of its containment dome.

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) reported the major lift, which took took only 76 minutes to carry out, on 9 June. The company is leading the construction of the Yangjiang plant, which is planned to eventually feature six reactors using the CPR-1000 technology. It will be operated by the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Operations and Management Company - a joint venture with Hong Kong's China Light and Power. The company already manages the Daya Bay, Ling Ao and Ling Ao Phase II nuclear power plants

Construction at Yangjiang began with unit 1 in December 2008. Work at unit 2 was started in August 2009 and at unit 3 in November 2010. Construction of unit 4 was meant to have started in early 2011, but this was suspended pending the results of a post-Fukushima analysis by Chinese safety authorities. Two further units are planned for Yangjiang but their schedules have also been subject to review.

Units 1, 2 and 3 are slated to begin commercial operation in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.

Construction projects already underway should see China bring online some 27 new reactors by the end of 2015 - in addition to the 15 units currently in operation."

Researched and written
by World Nuclear News



Ever notice all the media hyped bad news makes it into the press and tele almost daily post Fukushima? However the above major positive for nuclear energy is noticeably omitted/overlooked by the very same mainstream press that spurred on the negative emotion driven hype.

This thread will have a noticably different theme when things change regarding uranium and PEN in particular.

 

[Scuba]

Hi Hangseng and others,

Ever notice all the media hyped bad news makes it into the press and tele almost daily post Fukushima? However the above major positive for nuclear energy is noticeably omitted/overlooked by the very same mainstream press that spurred on the negative emotion driven hype.

I disagree with you here, and feel that Fukushima is under-reported in mainstream media. The quotation below from Japan's former Ambassador to Switzerland is a case in point. However, I'm not here to argue, just state a few personal points...

Pulled out of these stocks completely on ethical grounds, and given that Fukushima's entire spent fuel pool is within a hundred or so metres of reactor 4 building...

ENE news link to quoted.

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Number 4 reactor presents a security problem for the entire world, Mitsuhei Murata, Japan’s former ambassador to Switzerland said.

Shame there wasn't a nuclear cleanup stock, that's what I'd be investing in...
Regards,
Scuba

 

[burglar]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-16/japan-pm-orders-nuclear-restart-amid-protests/4074818

as published by ABC website - for the cynical people.
God bless Japan and its PM to bless PEN and its holders

Contained within that very same report -

"On Friday, Japan's Nobel literature prize laureate Kenzaburo Oe visited the prime minister's office and handed the signatures of 6.5 million opposed to the continued use of nuclear reactors."

 

[hangseng]

Contained within that very same report -

"On Friday, Japan's Nobel literature prize laureate Kenzaburo Oe visited the prime minister's office and handed the signatures of 6.5 million opposed to the continued use of nuclear reactors."

Contained within that very same report -

"On Friday, Japan's Nobel literature prize laureate Kenzaburo Oe visited the prime minister's office and handed the signatures of 6.5 million opposed to the continued use of nuclear reactors."

Also didn't state where the signatories were located, were they all Japanese? However let's assume only all Japanese residing people. With a 2010 population of ~127,451,000 that makes ~4.7% of the population, hardly compelling numbers in a democratic system.

Love to see a poll done if they don't restart all the reactors, power prices rise and wide raging blackouts occur. Also the much publicised negative effect on the already sad economy of Japan.

Scuba respect your viewpoint, but we will have to agree to disagree regarding the media. Post Fukushima the mainstream media worldwide had a field day, many of the headlines posted here and elsewhere. Always mentioning the many lives lost in the same sentence as the plant failure, of which the latter had nothing to do with aand hardly a mention of the earthquake and resultant Tsunami. A question for you on your stance if I may. Would you/do you have the same view on coal mining? An industry well noted for the ongoing multiple fatalities, serious illnesses and attributed in no small way to climate change (if one is to believe this aspect). Far in excess of any industry let alone nuclear energy, but never receiving the same attention as the nuclear industry.

A few views:

http://suzukielders.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/the-pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-versus-coal/
"The pros and cons of nuclear power versus coal"


http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/nuclear-accidents-and-all-coal-is-by-far-the-deadliest-energy-source/
"Nuclear Accidents and All, Coal Is By Far the Deadliest Energy Source"


http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/
"Nuclear Accidents and All, Coal Is By Far the Deadliest Energy Source"

"...for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation."


So that leaves us with wind and solar, if so great why haven't they been pursued with the passsion and vigour of the anti-nuclear lobby (that conveniently side steps coal fired power in the same argument)?

Thankfully PEN is about to operate in a country that is going forward with nuclear energy, as many countries are that will place an inevitable pressure on supply/demand.

SUPPLY AND DEMAMD with a forecast U price of $90lb in 2013.

http://www.macquarieprivatewealth.c...t/noel/documents/matt-noel-uranium-report.pdf
"The time is now
The time to buy uranium stocks is now before
the herd catches on to this prime opportunity."


Time will tell if the naysayers or uranium bulls were right.

 

[Scuba]

Absolutely HS, the gentlemans way...
Not a big fan of coal and refuse to work in the industry but realise it's uses particularly coking coal. (Another argument however and enough said.)

My issue is with the instability of Fukushima R4 building and the spent fuel pool. If/when the structure fails (and it's rated a zero currently in terms of it's capacity to withstand another earthquake.), the spent fuel pool will drain removing the zirconium sheilding and fuel rods from the coolant and thus creating another meltdown directly exposed to atmosphere. Already, Fukushima is considered many times worse than Chenobyl/Pripyat in terms of the long term Cesium particle release/ water/ food contaminations measured to date.
Essentially, our real issue lies with the way we have as providers of Nuclear energy, relied on designs intended for small scale Naval reactors and upscaled those reactors to city sized reactors. Just do a search on the GE three (which I've linked). We are currently using too many out dated reactors and have a major shortfall in our ability to deal with the extremely serious problems which Three Mile Island, Chenobyl, and Fukushima have hilighted, not to mention the manifold issues which have failed to make it to the public realm.

Until I see generational design change in Nuclear power generation I will be opposed to the haphazard Risk Analysis applied to it's ongoing use.
Kind regards and an apology for going off topic...
Scuba

 

[hangseng]

Absolutely HS, the gentlemans way...
Not a big fan of coal and refuse to work in the industry but realise it's uses particularly coking coal. (Another argument however and enough said.)

My issue is with the instability of Fukushima R4 building and the spent fuel pool. If/when the structure fails (and it's rated a zero currently in terms of it's capacity to withstand another earthquake.), the spent fuel pool will drain removing the zirconium sheilding and fuel rods from the coolant and thus creating another meltdown directly exposed to atmosphere. Already, Fukushima is considered many times worse than Chenobyl/Pripyat in terms of the long term Cesium particle release/ water/ food contaminations measured to date.
Essentially, our real issue lies with the way we have as providers of Nuclear energy, relied on designs intended for small scale Naval reactors and upscaled those reactors to city sized reactors. Just do a search on the GE three (which I've linked). We are currently using too many out dated reactors and have a major shortfall in our ability to deal with the extremely serious problems which Three Mile Island, Chenobyl, and Fukushima have hilighted, not to mention the manifold issues which have failed to make it to the public realm.

Until I see generational design change in Nuclear power generation I will be opposed to the haphazard Risk Analysis applied to it's ongoing use.
Kind regards and an apology for going off topic...
Scuba

No apology needed Scuba, not to me anyway. You aren't the first I have heard of making decision of personal conscience, as is everyones right.

However in the case of nuclear power I believe the risks are overstated and look at all available information.

For instance I, you I feel sure, and many others still drive a car, when road fatalities account for the majority of deaths and permanent disabiilities world wide. Why do we not ban motor transport, instead of simply making cars faster and more powerful without any additional significant risk mitigation measures? Air bags are merely an after thought not a prevention. This doesn't stop investors/traders in transport, cars and all associated with this industry.

Coal I have already mentioned and is simply undisputably the most hazardous form of energy production when placed in context. This doesn't stop investors in coal.

Bhopal is on record as the worst chemical process plant disaster ever, shadowing all three nuclear accidents by a long shot.

From Wiki:
"The official immediate death toll was 2,259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. Others estimate 3,000 died within weeks and another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases. A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries."


Radiation/uranium as I am sure you are aware is naturally occurring and abundant on earth, we need do nothing it is still there. Nuclear plant accidents of note can be counted with 3 fingers, combined they account for a negigable number of fatalities and permanent disabilities in comparison to coal, cars and chemical plant incidents.

This chap places into context rather well IMO:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/12/3451294.htm

"The "Fukushima disaster" clouds the merits of nuclear power, argues Martin Freer"

"The dramatic events that unfolded at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant after last year's tsunami are commonly referred to as "the Fukushima disaster." We need look no further than this description to begin to understand the significant misconceptions that surround nuclear energy.

It was the tsunami, caused by the largest earthquake ever to strike Japan, which killed more than 16,000 people, destroyed or damaged roughly 125,000 buildings, and left the country facing what its prime minister described as its biggest crisis since World War II. Yet it is Fukushima that is habitually accorded the "disaster" label."


How many were killed due to radiation and the accident at the Fukushima? None

How many were killed due to radiation and the accident at the 3 Mile Island? None

The 3 Mile event did result in a lot of fear due to ignorance and media hype, as did Fukushima.

Wiki again stating this:
"Public reaction to the event was probably influenced by The China Syndrome, a movie which had recently been released and which depicts an accident at a nuclear reactor."

Chernobyl admittedly resulted in many unfortunate fatalities.
"56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths "


Placed in context of all accidents that occurred in the same period of the above it makes nuclear look a lot safer than even driving to the shops.

I do agree old now outdated plant design and safety concerns should be addressed for both new nad old plants. There is ample evidence that new generation plant design is doing just that. Ironically, the Fukushima plant accident could have been avoided by simply raising the emergency power backup to the top of the plant instead of just above sea level. A design flaw and failure to identify and control risk I agree, but not an operational nuclear design flaw.

Fukushima was devastated by an earthquake and a Tsunami, literally a 1:1000 year event. Will it stop people living on the coast and going on coastal holidays? No

Will I continue to invest in uranium companies supplying fuel for Nuclear Power, most definitely.

But differing points of view is what makes the world go around and does aid in "keeping the bastards honest". Placing pressure on companies of all industries, not just nuclear, to improve safety standards should be applauded. Your personal stance is one means of doing so Scuba and I respect you for that.

I think this topic is relevant to almost any stock in industries where decisions of conscience are made, it is definitely not isolated to nuclear energy. Oil and Gas, transport, medical/drugs, property, chemical manufacture and on it goes.


Further reading:
NOAA Looks at the Waters Near Fukushima Daiichi
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2012/04/noaa-looks-at-waters-near-fukushima.html

Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109.full.pdf+html

Three Mile Island
An accident at a Pennsylvania reactor transfixed the nation and hobbled America's nuclear energy industry. Is it poised for a comeback?
"In the end, the mishap at Three Mile Island did not end in a catastrophe or any serious injury, but a nation already wary of nuclear power turned against it with a vengeance. And a deadly explosion less than a decade later at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in what was then the Soviet Union convinced many nuclear-energy opponents that their fears were warranted. It's only now, 30 years after Three Mile Island, amid concerns about global warming and America's dependence on fossil fuels, that nuclear energy could be getting a second look. "
http://teacher.scholastic.com/schol...features/index.asp?article=f031609_Three_Mile

 

[herzy]

fantastic post HS

 

[Scuba]

Yes P.

How many were killed due to radiation and the accident at the Fukushima? None

Half life of Radio nuclides and <2 year exposures? Only to be expected...

Radiation/uranium as I am sure you are aware is naturally occurring and abundant on earth, we need do nothing it is still there.

>460 Tons in common spent fuel pool at Fukushima Daichi plant...

• Naturally occuring isotopes, Isotopes in spent fuel, U238 concentrate, Plutonium, Cesium, Strontium 90, Iodine isotopes

I've listed some non-naturally occuring nuclides

Nuclear plant accidents of note can be counted with 3 fingers, combined they account for a negigable number of fatalities and permanent disabilities in comparison to coal, cars and chemical plant incidents

List of nuclear power accidents by country
Admittedly from Wiki, but the list is substantially longer than three. Furthermore, history has revealed itself many years and even decades later on numerous occasions...

Chernobyl admittedly resulted in many unfortunate fatalities.
"56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths "

What of the "liquidators" or "Human robots" the Soviets paid USD $10K for?
What of the costs of maintaining the "sarcophagus"? Have you seen the BBC Horizons documentary (Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus) aired in the 1996? (I can mail you a recording if you wish my friend?)

There are many reports online suggesting the data wasn't collected dilligently with regard to the health effects of the Chenobyl... Some reports even suggest this was an intention on the part of authorities...

I read an article from a decent source this year (2012) discussing wild boar hunting in Germany and how the hunters were still unable to eat their prey. I apologise for not linking, but here's one anyway...

I do agree old now outdated plant design and safety concerns should be addressed for both new nad old plants. There is ample evidence that new generation plant design is doing just that. Ironically, the Fukushima plant accident could have been avoided by simply raising the emergency power backup to the top of the plant instead of just above sea level. A design flaw and failure to identify and control risk I agree, but not an operational nuclear design flaw.

How do we define outdated, given the Fukushima plant was actually slated for shutdown recently but kept running due to "Operational energy requirements"? TEPCO were warned by their own Engineers of some of the issues, particularly of Tsunami risk including amplitude thereof (as noted in the public realm). (I remember our PM discussions HS )

Again, look back to the genesis of the nuclear power generation technologies; money was invested into development of the "Naval reactor" not the larger scale options... Where I disagree with you friend in the design flaws. Also, I do appreciate how the breeder reactor automatically scrams during power supply failures, but the problem is the breeder reactor creates highly radioactive waste (so essentially, it solves one problem but creates another in the form of storage of relatively long half-life waste).


With regard to the one in a thousand year event though, I often argue this with my wife in the case of our ability as humans to measure and store the data on such events... She refers to an increased incidence of cancers/ I suggest we didn't perform so many autopsies or posess diagnostic definitions to prove the case...?

NOAA Looks at the Waters Near Fukushima Daiichi I found this quite interesting in terms of the dates HS; the article was published on April 3rd 2012 and the first paragraph opens with "The American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency sent a research vessel boat to Japan last April to study the waters near the Fukushima Daiichi facility and assess the impact of radioactive isotopes released into the water by the plant." The bold highlight suggests "last April" which would have been April 2011 around one month after the Tsunami incident and resultant containment breeches at Fukushima... Japanese tuna trace radioactive path and Massive fish kill outside Tokyo in Chiba ”” “The sight is somewhat apocalyptic” ”” “Almost looks like a carpet of sardines” may be worth having a look at also...

I will endeavour to read the National Academy article and suggest you read on Sodium reactor issues in the U.S. (what made public realm), and Thorium reactors (which would be brilliant if we could make a portable fission reactor to "jump start" the Thorium)...

I imagine a post from the mods could be due however, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss such things in this forum...

With kind regard,
Scuba

 

[Scuba]

By the way HS, I do love your Cohen quote Sig...