hangseng
Gong Xi Fa Cai
- Joined
- 19 March 2007
- Posts
- 1,069
- Reactions
- 2
PEN - Peninsula Energy
- Thread starter dingos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pen peninsula energy
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
I'm sorry I cannot locate the article which lead me to make the comment. Although, the article was not point specific to uranium mining in Wyoming, it was more of geological assesment which included a number of areas in the Wyoming district.
I will retract the comment as I cannot pinpoint the article, however the basis on which it is made refers to the yet proven Hydro testing the company needs to do with these historical grades.
For those interested here is a link which my provide a little bit of balance between ISR mining and those of Penninsula Fan Boys.
http://www.stockinterview.com/News/04092007/Water-ISR-Uranium-Mining.html
The article is a few years old.
I'm sorry I cannot locate the article which lead me to make the comment. Although, the article was not point specific to uranium mining in Wyoming, it was more of geological assesment which included a number of areas in the Wyoming district.
I will retract the comment as I cannot pinpoint the article, however the basis on which it is made refers to the yet proven Hydro testing the company needs to do with these historical grades.
For those interested here is a link which my provide a little bit of balance between ISR mining and those of Penninsula Fan Boys.
http://www.stockinterview.com/News/04092007/Water-ISR-Uranium-Mining.html
The article is a few years old.
hangseng
Gong Xi Fa Cai
- Joined
- 19 March 2007
- Posts
- 1,069
- Reactions
- 2
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
I am well aware of that article and that webiste in particular. Let's analyse it a little with some supported factual information.
As it turns out that article is well supported by PEN and in particular this statement from the article you point out:
"In our case, we focused our acquisition activities in the Powder River Basin, which we know from our previous work. Most of those sands that are hosting uranium are indeed saturated with water."
The Powder River Basin being where PEN is and also being the largest landholder in the location and growing. You are correct that the hydrological results will tell a story. A story very similar to what has been stated in the article you point out. The Powder River Basin has ample water supplies in contained aquifers. Well proven in the location that PEN is targeting.
A few notes on the subject of the Lance Project, Lance Formations, and NE Wyoming.
I have done my research over the last 3 years, along with a few learned colleagues who know far more than I do and the Lance Project is not what you have implied. It is well suited to ISR and PEN' own initial studies has confirmed this. The Hydrological test results are also expected to confirm Lance being amenable to ISR as already stated by PEN.
Cretaceous
Upper Cretaceous
Lance Formation
"North Wyoming--thick-bedded buff sandstone and drab to green shale; thin conglomerate lenses.... Northeast Wyoming--brown and gray sandstone and shale; thin coal and carbonaceous shale beds."3
Generally yields less than 76 L/min, but yields of several hundred liters per minute may be possible from the complete section of the formation in Powder River Basin.
Dissolved-solids concentrations of historical water samples taken in the Bighorn Basin ranged from 591 to 1,860 mg/L.
Dissolved-solids concentrations of historical water samples taken in the Powder River Basin ranged from about 200 to more than 2,000 mg/L, but commonly ranged between 500 and 1,500 mg/L." I]
source: http://pubs.usgs.gov
Lance Project
Background / Geology Notes
Project Name Lance Uranium Project
Location Gillette, 55km NE of
Wyoming
United States
Project Type Insitu Leach
Project Status Pre-feasibility
Commodities uranium
"the Sundance prospect is the Lance Formation, of upper Cretaceous age. It consists of fluvial channel sandstones, inter-channel mudstones, claystones, and sandstones. The sandstones are generally fine-grained, friable, and occur in beds up to 7.6m thick, and are quartzose to feldspathic in composition.
At Oshoto there are multiple roll front systems that are stacked above each other, but in separate sandstone units. This positioning of these geochemical cells, generally one atop another, has created thick zones of uranium mineralisation (in the range of 0.05% U3O8) that were the subject of the pilot plant development program undertaken by the NuBeth JV. "
source: http://www.intierra.com/profiles/properties/L\Lance Uranium Project.htm
I am well aware of that article and that webiste in particular. Let's analyse it a little with some supported factual information.
As it turns out that article is well supported by PEN and in particular this statement from the article you point out:
"In our case, we focused our acquisition activities in the Powder River Basin, which we know from our previous work. Most of those sands that are hosting uranium are indeed saturated with water."
The Powder River Basin being where PEN is and also being the largest landholder in the location and growing. You are correct that the hydrological results will tell a story. A story very similar to what has been stated in the article you point out. The Powder River Basin has ample water supplies in contained aquifers. Well proven in the location that PEN is targeting.
A few notes on the subject of the Lance Project, Lance Formations, and NE Wyoming.
I have done my research over the last 3 years, along with a few learned colleagues who know far more than I do and the Lance Project is not what you have implied. It is well suited to ISR and PEN' own initial studies has confirmed this. The Hydrological test results are also expected to confirm Lance being amenable to ISR as already stated by PEN.
Cretaceous
Upper Cretaceous
Lance Formation
"North Wyoming--thick-bedded buff sandstone and drab to green shale; thin conglomerate lenses.... Northeast Wyoming--brown and gray sandstone and shale; thin coal and carbonaceous shale beds."3
Generally yields less than 76 L/min, but yields of several hundred liters per minute may be possible from the complete section of the formation in Powder River Basin.
Dissolved-solids concentrations of historical water samples taken in the Bighorn Basin ranged from 591 to 1,860 mg/L.
Dissolved-solids concentrations of historical water samples taken in the Powder River Basin ranged from about 200 to more than 2,000 mg/L, but commonly ranged between 500 and 1,500 mg/L." I]
source: http://pubs.usgs.gov
Lance Project
Background / Geology Notes
Project Name Lance Uranium Project
Location Gillette, 55km NE of
Wyoming
United States
Project Type Insitu Leach
Project Status Pre-feasibility
Commodities uranium
"the Sundance prospect is the Lance Formation, of upper Cretaceous age. It consists of fluvial channel sandstones, inter-channel mudstones, claystones, and sandstones. The sandstones are generally fine-grained, friable, and occur in beds up to 7.6m thick, and are quartzose to feldspathic in composition.
At Oshoto there are multiple roll front systems that are stacked above each other, but in separate sandstone units. This positioning of these geochemical cells, generally one atop another, has created thick zones of uranium mineralisation (in the range of 0.05% U3O8) that were the subject of the pilot plant development program undertaken by the NuBeth JV. "
source: http://www.intierra.com/profiles/properties/L\Lance Uranium Project.htm
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
You might like to add the rest of the quote "......There are some that are not. From our experience we pretty much know those deposits that may be sitting above the water table. In other words, they are not saturated with water. If uranium went to $500/pound, maybe some day you could put a conventional mine on them."
Show me the water.
You might like to add the rest of the quote "......There are some that are not. From our experience we pretty much know those deposits that may be sitting above the water table. In other words, they are not saturated with water. If uranium went to $500/pound, maybe some day you could put a conventional mine on them."
Show me the water.
hangseng
Gong Xi Fa Cai
- Joined
- 19 March 2007
- Posts
- 1,069
- Reactions
- 2
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Just so as no confusion for anyone here reading all of this. That reference was not in regard to PEN's land area at Sundance (Lance) it was the person talking of the land they are on in the South East of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The same area you stated previously had the best water
Somehow that isn't supported by the information he has presented, nor the hydrological data I sourced and posted here.
Objective facts should be presented not subjective viewpoints.
Just so as no confusion for anyone here reading all of this. That reference was not in regard to PEN's land area at Sundance (Lance) it was the person talking of the land they are on in the South East of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The same area you stated previously had the best water
Somehow that isn't supported by the information he has presented, nor the hydrological data I sourced and posted here.
Objective facts should be presented not subjective viewpoints.
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Warwick Grigor isn't the best speaker, but this is an extremely positive presentation on many fronts:
www brr com au/event/58833/canary-events-uranium-investor-forum-july-09-warwick-grigor-peninsula-minerals
(sorry for removing the "." from the website address at the start but this site wouldn't let me post the link otherwise)
In summary, PEN could be sitting on 100mlbs in Wyoming and 150mlbs in South Africa, and management are deliberately holding off on JORC compliance so that they can remain under the radar for now. For reference, Extract Resources (SP: $6.77, MC: 1.2 billion+) is expected to report a total of between 250-300mlbs at Rossing South next month. Extract has a lot of other things going for it, but not enough to explain why its 250mlbs at 450ppm is worth over $1.2 billion while PEN's 250mlbs at 700ppm+ is only worth $30-40 million. When the market officially wakes up to this reality I hope to see a significant re-rating. It'll never be another Extract, but I think a quarter or half of Extract is realistic and fair. Just give it a few years.
z-trader
Warwick Grigor isn't the best speaker, but this is an extremely positive presentation on many fronts:
www brr com au/event/58833/canary-events-uranium-investor-forum-july-09-warwick-grigor-peninsula-minerals
(sorry for removing the "." from the website address at the start but this site wouldn't let me post the link otherwise)
In summary, PEN could be sitting on 100mlbs in Wyoming and 150mlbs in South Africa, and management are deliberately holding off on JORC compliance so that they can remain under the radar for now. For reference, Extract Resources (SP: $6.77, MC: 1.2 billion+) is expected to report a total of between 250-300mlbs at Rossing South next month. Extract has a lot of other things going for it, but not enough to explain why its 250mlbs at 450ppm is worth over $1.2 billion while PEN's 250mlbs at 700ppm+ is only worth $30-40 million. When the market officially wakes up to this reality I hope to see a significant re-rating. It'll never be another Extract, but I think a quarter or half of Extract is realistic and fair. Just give it a few years.
z-trader
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
"....and management are deliberately holding off on JORC compliance so that they can remain under the radar for now."
Yep, thats how you run a company.
For the sake of PEN investors I would probably ask Mr Grigor not to do any more presentations, I dont think he could believe the bullsh#t he was spinning. Would not instill any encouragement for me.
There was nothing he said that was not a reiteration of the rescent presentations that PEN put to the market.
IMO they are land grabbing because the historical drill holes they whilst they may contain good uranium grades , they do not have enough encouraging signs of water. Sure thay have the spongy qualities of good filtration but so does all of the Powder River Basin.
Most of these historical holes must be well above the water table, quote Mr Grigor .." depth is not an obstacle"
..." we must get circulation of fluids through the ore bodies."
I'm sorry but I think that the main areas of uranium interest are around the south western and eastern areas of Powder River Basin, even the map in PEN's presentations shows where a few new mines are being placed and where all the activity is.
Anyway all the best.
"....and management are deliberately holding off on JORC compliance so that they can remain under the radar for now."
Yep, thats how you run a company.
For the sake of PEN investors I would probably ask Mr Grigor not to do any more presentations, I dont think he could believe the bullsh#t he was spinning. Would not instill any encouragement for me.
There was nothing he said that was not a reiteration of the rescent presentations that PEN put to the market.
IMO they are land grabbing because the historical drill holes they whilst they may contain good uranium grades , they do not have enough encouraging signs of water. Sure thay have the spongy qualities of good filtration but so does all of the Powder River Basin.
Most of these historical holes must be well above the water table, quote Mr Grigor .." depth is not an obstacle"
..." we must get circulation of fluids through the ore bodies."
I'm sorry but I think that the main areas of uranium interest are around the south western and eastern areas of Powder River Basin, even the map in PEN's presentations shows where a few new mines are being placed and where all the activity is.
Anyway all the best.
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
I've got nothing against negative opinions, but I think the problem when you write about a company you intensely dislike is that you've stopped processing information about that company in depth. For instance:
1) A lack of confidence with public speaking does not prove nor imply a person is "bullsh#tting".
2) Your explanation for why they are land grabbing is only one of several possibilities. Another possibility is that they're extremely happy with what they've got and want as much more land in the same area as possible at the lowest possible price. That goal isn't achieved by screaming from the rooftops that there's Uranium in them thar hills.
3) The area has ALREADY been mined economically in the past! For your claims and selective quotes to hold, you need to explain your reasoning for thinking something has changed geologically. If you have no evidence, then don't make absolute claims please. There's every reason to believe mining is possible until further studies are done. For you to claim you know the outcome of those studies already without supplying a shred of evidence is testing the limits of your credibility.
z-trader
I've got nothing against negative opinions, but I think the problem when you write about a company you intensely dislike is that you've stopped processing information about that company in depth. For instance:
1) A lack of confidence with public speaking does not prove nor imply a person is "bullsh#tting".
2) Your explanation for why they are land grabbing is only one of several possibilities. Another possibility is that they're extremely happy with what they've got and want as much more land in the same area as possible at the lowest possible price. That goal isn't achieved by screaming from the rooftops that there's Uranium in them thar hills.
3) The area has ALREADY been mined economically in the past! For your claims and selective quotes to hold, you need to explain your reasoning for thinking something has changed geologically. If you have no evidence, then don't make absolute claims please. There's every reason to believe mining is possible until further studies are done. For you to claim you know the outcome of those studies already without supplying a shred of evidence is testing the limits of your credibility.
z-trader
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
It's the sort of retort I would expect from a Peninsula fan boy.
My comments are not negative, I dont dislike the company, my information processing is fine.
Yeah, I probably over steped the mark on that one, never the less Mr Grigor didnt inspire the conifdence, just guilding some big lilly.
As its considered one of several posibilities I take that as you are in agreeance with my explanation as I am with yours. Regarding the "screaming from rooftops that there's Uranium in them thar hills" Mr Grigor in his opening remarks blurted out the abundance of Uranium in the district, what you think the landowners in Wyoming are just like "Ma n Pa Kettle".
These selective quotes are from Mr Grigor talking about what your ears seem to selectively filter, what reson do I need to give for the fact that Mr Grigor says that they need to get "circulation of fluids through the ore body"...thats a fact is it not?
Coal Bed Methane (CBM)changes something geologically, Mr Grigor mentions that the uranium is also found amongst CBM,
Heres some fact, which ties into the comment made by Mr Grigor ".....depth is not an obstacle." I sort of take it that the water table is somewhat deep below the ore body.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...+wyoming+water+table&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
As for my claim to know the outcome of whats in the studies (no point tyring to ask you where it is I have made such claim) , yes you are correct I posses special super powers that enable me to see whats below the ground and post such findings on stock chat forums but these powers came at a heavy price by not being able to pick the seven numbers in Oz Lotto and this is a burden I alone must bare.
I will await the hydro testing
All the best
It's the sort of retort I would expect from a Peninsula fan boy.
My comments are not negative, I dont dislike the company, my information processing is fine.
Yeah, I probably over steped the mark on that one, never the less Mr Grigor didnt inspire the conifdence, just guilding some big lilly.
As its considered one of several posibilities I take that as you are in agreeance with my explanation as I am with yours. Regarding the "screaming from rooftops that there's Uranium in them thar hills" Mr Grigor in his opening remarks blurted out the abundance of Uranium in the district, what you think the landowners in Wyoming are just like "Ma n Pa Kettle".
These selective quotes are from Mr Grigor talking about what your ears seem to selectively filter, what reson do I need to give for the fact that Mr Grigor says that they need to get "circulation of fluids through the ore body"...thats a fact is it not?
Coal Bed Methane (CBM)changes something geologically, Mr Grigor mentions that the uranium is also found amongst CBM,
Heres some fact, which ties into the comment made by Mr Grigor ".....depth is not an obstacle." I sort of take it that the water table is somewhat deep below the ore body.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...+wyoming+water+table&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
As for my claim to know the outcome of whats in the studies (no point tyring to ask you where it is I have made such claim) , yes you are correct I posses special super powers that enable me to see whats below the ground and post such findings on stock chat forums but these powers came at a heavy price by not being able to pick the seven numbers in Oz Lotto and this is a burden I alone must bare.
I will await the hydro testing
All the best
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Well, overstepping the mark is a sign of the kind of superficial processing and dismissal of information I was referring to. Let's just agree that you're as much of an anti-fanboy as I am a fanboy.
I'd be surprised if any owners are following PEN that closely. I wouldn't expect Peninsula Minerals to be acquiring land under its company name so it'd be quite a feat for a land holder to make the connection. Besides which, most of the land acquisition has already been carried out. It's only in the last few months that management has been hitting the media, raising capital etc.
Of course it's fact, but for some reason you chose to omit the sentences before and after where Warwick clearly stated confidence that all the boxes had been ticked (including hydrostatic pressure). From presentation of 6 May: "Review of historic engineering studies has confirmed suitability of the project to the ISR mining method."
Why do you "sort of take it that the water table is somewhat deep below the ore body" when Warwick and company presentations have clearly stated otherwise?
I quote again from the company presentation on 6 May: "ISR Criteria ... Water Table - deposit must be below water table to ensure hydrostatic pressure ... Laboratory studies and field test work demonstrate that all criteria are met at the Lance projects"
That's a great find. Thanks. However, most of the serious implications of CBM mining to the water table are predicted to take effect around 2017. If all goes to plan, PEN will be commencing production in Karoo, South Africa by then.
You claimed the historical holes "must" be above the water table despite every indication from the company that they are below the water table as required for the ISR method to be viable. To me that reads as you being extremely confident that you have better knowledge of the current geology than the company does.
Have you had a close look at where the Lance Uranium Project is? The area is riddled with streams, lakes, and rivers. I can't claim to be a geologist or to know 100% in this particular case, but I do know that water tables are maintained by constant leaching of water through the soil into aquifers. We know from historical studies that suitable aquifers are abundant across the Lance project, and we can infer from the healthy river and stream system that there's plenty of water in the area to seep through the soil and fill those aquifers. I agree CBM mining may pose a risk, but I disagree if you think the chances of that being the case are anything beyond small.
I'm not sure we'll need to wait for the official hydro results. Drilling starts next week and the drill crews should know pretty quickly whether there's water in the aquifers. I'm hoping to have a clearer picture within a month.
z-trader
Well, overstepping the mark is a sign of the kind of superficial processing and dismissal of information I was referring to. Let's just agree that you're as much of an anti-fanboy as I am a fanboy.
I'd be surprised if any owners are following PEN that closely. I wouldn't expect Peninsula Minerals to be acquiring land under its company name so it'd be quite a feat for a land holder to make the connection. Besides which, most of the land acquisition has already been carried out. It's only in the last few months that management has been hitting the media, raising capital etc.
Of course it's fact, but for some reason you chose to omit the sentences before and after where Warwick clearly stated confidence that all the boxes had been ticked (including hydrostatic pressure). From presentation of 6 May: "Review of historic engineering studies has confirmed suitability of the project to the ISR mining method."
Why do you "sort of take it that the water table is somewhat deep below the ore body" when Warwick and company presentations have clearly stated otherwise?
I quote again from the company presentation on 6 May: "ISR Criteria ... Water Table - deposit must be below water table to ensure hydrostatic pressure ... Laboratory studies and field test work demonstrate that all criteria are met at the Lance projects"
That's a great find. Thanks. However, most of the serious implications of CBM mining to the water table are predicted to take effect around 2017. If all goes to plan, PEN will be commencing production in Karoo, South Africa by then.
You claimed the historical holes "must" be above the water table despite every indication from the company that they are below the water table as required for the ISR method to be viable. To me that reads as you being extremely confident that you have better knowledge of the current geology than the company does.
Have you had a close look at where the Lance Uranium Project is? The area is riddled with streams, lakes, and rivers. I can't claim to be a geologist or to know 100% in this particular case, but I do know that water tables are maintained by constant leaching of water through the soil into aquifers. We know from historical studies that suitable aquifers are abundant across the Lance project, and we can infer from the healthy river and stream system that there's plenty of water in the area to seep through the soil and fill those aquifers. I agree CBM mining may pose a risk, but I disagree if you think the chances of that being the case are anything beyond small.
I'm not sure we'll need to wait for the official hydro results. Drilling starts next week and the drill crews should know pretty quickly whether there's water in the aquifers. I'm hoping to have a clearer picture within a month.
z-trader
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,004
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
The immediate targets they are aiming for seem more reasonable which is just a few million pounds.
Very early days for them, and to compare them with EXT is a bit of a stretch.
Their market caps duely reflect this I feel.
z-t, can you find anywhere in PENs announcements how they come up with those exploration targets? I've been looking back through previous anns and presentations and there doesn't seem to be any justification for it, except to state some ppm's. Looks like a ramp from them to me.
The immediate targets they are aiming for seem more reasonable which is just a few million pounds.
Very early days for them, and to compare them with EXT is a bit of a stretch.
Their market caps duely reflect this I feel.
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
You're correct to be cynical kennas. My understanding is (ie from 6 May presentation) that the resource estimates are derived from historical drilling data. Over 900000 metres of drilling has been carried out across the Lance Uranium Project and analysis of the data suggests 50-76 mlbs of Uranium. The presentation shows a grid of where the drilling is concentrated. Warwick Grigor is speculating that further discoveries will be found as the area is drilled out further, and that it could end up being around 100mlbs.
I agree. It is premature to compare with Extract, but if we take Extract today with 149mlbs at 450ppm and compare with where PEN could be in 2-3 years then the comparison holds IMO. PEN is likely to be producing before Extract is and PEN has already done comparible amounts of drilling (through the purchase of historical drilling data worth roughly $60 million USD). Drilling to verify the historical data commences next week and IF all goes to plan then PEN could quickly go from having almost no proven resource to a significant resource quite quickly.
It also isn't necessary for PEN to have 250mlbs for considerable upside. According to the preliminary scoping study included in the 6 May presentation, achieving production of 1.5 mlbs per annum after an initial JORC of 12-15mlbs at Ross and Barber (the two most promising sites of 12 at Lance) equates to a Net Present Value of $260 million USD or roughly 30 cents per share.
I think the biggest risk right now (largely mitigated IMHO) is that for some reason the aquifers at Lance no longer have sufficient Hydrostatic pressure to make ISR viable, but once over that hurdle I think the long term future is pretty bright even if they only ever mine a quarter of the speculative 250mlbs, the share price will be a lot higher than it is now in a couple of years.
ztrader
You're correct to be cynical kennas. My understanding is (ie from 6 May presentation) that the resource estimates are derived from historical drilling data. Over 900000 metres of drilling has been carried out across the Lance Uranium Project and analysis of the data suggests 50-76 mlbs of Uranium. The presentation shows a grid of where the drilling is concentrated. Warwick Grigor is speculating that further discoveries will be found as the area is drilled out further, and that it could end up being around 100mlbs.
I agree. It is premature to compare with Extract, but if we take Extract today with 149mlbs at 450ppm and compare with where PEN could be in 2-3 years then the comparison holds IMO. PEN is likely to be producing before Extract is and PEN has already done comparible amounts of drilling (through the purchase of historical drilling data worth roughly $60 million USD). Drilling to verify the historical data commences next week and IF all goes to plan then PEN could quickly go from having almost no proven resource to a significant resource quite quickly.
It also isn't necessary for PEN to have 250mlbs for considerable upside. According to the preliminary scoping study included in the 6 May presentation, achieving production of 1.5 mlbs per annum after an initial JORC of 12-15mlbs at Ross and Barber (the two most promising sites of 12 at Lance) equates to a Net Present Value of $260 million USD or roughly 30 cents per share.
I think the biggest risk right now (largely mitigated IMHO) is that for some reason the aquifers at Lance no longer have sufficient Hydrostatic pressure to make ISR viable, but once over that hurdle I think the long term future is pretty bright even if they only ever mine a quarter of the speculative 250mlbs, the share price will be a lot higher than it is now in a couple of years.
ztrader
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Because Mr Gregior says that "..depth is no obstacle." To me that means that they need to go deeper.
Out of all the historical holes they have they have not said that they are flooded with water as a matter of fact they need to drill these out deeper, they even state this in their announcements. Or is Mr Grigor talking his book up.
....and just for my amusement i joined two of your quotes together
...makes no difference what you say after this irrespective of my editing, your next line says it all....
Because Mr Gregior says that "..depth is no obstacle." To me that means that they need to go deeper.
Out of all the historical holes they have they have not said that they are flooded with water as a matter of fact they need to drill these out deeper, they even state this in their announcements. Or is Mr Grigor talking his book up.
....and just for my amusement i joined two of your quotes together
...makes no difference what you say after this irrespective of my editing, your next line says it all....
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
So your whole case against PEN rests on one sentence fragment taken out of context and your best defense of it when shown evidence to the contrary is to re-state your misunderstanding "that they need to go deeper." In context, the remark means that the Uranium isn't very deep underground (120-160m to be precise) as anyone who's read the presentation on 6 May is aware.
This is what I was referring to when I said we may not need to wait until the official hydro results:
"StockInterview: Is there any way of detecting the problem in advance, before you discover you've got an inadequately saturated formation?
Glenn Catchpole: When you are drilling an exploration hole, the driller knows when he encounters any water at all. If he doesn't get any water, you know right away, you've got a problem very early on. When the driller starts out, he can start drilling with air. If he encounters water in his drilling, then he's going to switch over to drilling mud to carry the cuttings. As he's drilling a hole, he is creating cuttings. He has to have a mud slurry in order to carry those cuttings out of the hole. An experienced driller will have a good feel for how much water he's encountered. These drillers have worked all over Wyoming; they've got some feel for the local geology and what the water situation might be."
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article716.html
Drilling starts next week Jetblack. Hopefully, we'll be advised of an encouraging/discouraging water situation during the upcoming drilling phase.
z-trader
Because Mr Gregior says that "..depth is no obstacle." To me that means that they need to go deeper.
Out of all the historical holes they have they have not said that they are flooded with water as a matter of fact they need to drill these out deeper, they even state this in their announcements. Or is Mr Grigor talking his book up.
....and just for my amusement i joined two of your quotes together
...makes no difference what you say after this irrespective of my editing, your next line says it all....
So your whole case against PEN rests on one sentence fragment taken out of context and your best defense of it when shown evidence to the contrary is to re-state your misunderstanding "that they need to go deeper." In context, the remark means that the Uranium isn't very deep underground (120-160m to be precise) as anyone who's read the presentation on 6 May is aware.
This is what I was referring to when I said we may not need to wait until the official hydro results:
"StockInterview: Is there any way of detecting the problem in advance, before you discover you've got an inadequately saturated formation?
Glenn Catchpole: When you are drilling an exploration hole, the driller knows when he encounters any water at all. If he doesn't get any water, you know right away, you've got a problem very early on. When the driller starts out, he can start drilling with air. If he encounters water in his drilling, then he's going to switch over to drilling mud to carry the cuttings. As he's drilling a hole, he is creating cuttings. He has to have a mud slurry in order to carry those cuttings out of the hole. An experienced driller will have a good feel for how much water he's encountered. These drillers have worked all over Wyoming; they've got some feel for the local geology and what the water situation might be."
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article716.html
Drilling starts next week Jetblack. Hopefully, we'll be advised of an encouraging/discouraging water situation during the upcoming drilling phase.
z-trader
hangseng
Gong Xi Fa Cai
- Joined
- 19 March 2007
- Posts
- 1,069
- Reactions
- 2
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Kennas z-t has it correct.
Lance is a historical site that had a proven pilot plant in operation. With over 900000 metres of drilling carried out and they have all of that historical data. That data was in hard copy format when they purchased it from Pacmag. It was converted completely to a database over a period of almost 12mths, the same database that will be used for Jorc compliance. That is where the estimates have come from and they are valid based on that information and the confirmation drilling (26 holes) at Ross and Barber carried out last year.
What is also little known is they have the exact coordinates of where the pilot plant was located and each of the bore holes that were used for the plant. This along with the coordinates for all of the historic drilling.
This isn't information they plucked out of the air. It is factual valid data. PEN reported on this once the collation of data was complete and a simple phone call to Gus Simpson will confirm this anyway and where to find it.
Jetblack your false accusations and assumptions display to me you are doing nothing but continually guessing and mud slinging. As you did with the water information, that I clearly displayed you were wrong.
Now you state Warwick Grigor is blatantly lying, and that based on the way he presents. What a foolish and erroneous assumption.
So Gus Simpson is outlaying huge sums of his own money, now along with the other directors, because Lance is no good and the company directors are blatantly lying? Seriously you need to have a close look at what you are posting, I have decided to do the company the courtesy of providing what you have posted here for their information. Be prepared you may have some explaining to do now that you have directly named a director.
Kennas z-t has it correct.
Lance is a historical site that had a proven pilot plant in operation. With over 900000 metres of drilling carried out and they have all of that historical data. That data was in hard copy format when they purchased it from Pacmag. It was converted completely to a database over a period of almost 12mths, the same database that will be used for Jorc compliance. That is where the estimates have come from and they are valid based on that information and the confirmation drilling (26 holes) at Ross and Barber carried out last year.
What is also little known is they have the exact coordinates of where the pilot plant was located and each of the bore holes that were used for the plant. This along with the coordinates for all of the historic drilling.
This isn't information they plucked out of the air. It is factual valid data. PEN reported on this once the collation of data was complete and a simple phone call to Gus Simpson will confirm this anyway and where to find it.
Jetblack your false accusations and assumptions display to me you are doing nothing but continually guessing and mud slinging. As you did with the water information, that I clearly displayed you were wrong.
Now you state Warwick Grigor is blatantly lying, and that based on the way he presents. What a foolish and erroneous assumption.
So Gus Simpson is outlaying huge sums of his own money, now along with the other directors, because Lance is no good and the company directors are blatantly lying? Seriously you need to have a close look at what you are posting, I have decided to do the company the courtesy of providing what you have posted here for their information. Be prepared you may have some explaining to do now that you have directly named a director.
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
What is this, an attempted threat, why the mods haven’t told you to pull your head in. Can you explain what it is your trying to say or do you just get off on being a company stooge and this is how you wield your big stick.
I have not mentioned the word lying nor have accused the company directors of such. These are your words not mine or is this a Freudian slip and you know more about the directors then the ordinary man in the street? Stop trying to sensationalise
You don’t find it unusual that Mr Grigor can be so nonchalant regarding JORC.
Mr Grigor put it out there in the public domain he said in his opening discussion that they don’t have a resource and that you need to comply with JORC standards. The reasoning behind this is that they need to tie up land and if word gets out it only makes it harder. If we believe Z-Trader who says
Also Strathmore Minerals Corp a Canadian explorer is also a dominant land holder in the Powder River area, as a matter of fact they seem not to dissimilar to Peninsula, why they even have similar presentation diagrams and also have historical data. I can’t believe that the Land owners in Wyoming don’t now what is going on with all this activity around.
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/fulp/fulp031109.html
Coal Bed Methane is an integral part of the Powder River Basin and does have an effect on water levels. Here is a quote “Coal bed methane extraction requires that the coal seams be drained of water, emptying aquifers that may take hundreds of years to refill”…
http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/crow/hydrology.html
Why would you not take Mr Grigor to task on that he brings up CBM in his discussion? Maybe sections of the lands Peninsula acquired are shared with CBM operations and there is a need to go deeper.
Hangseng you have proved nothing to me regarding the hydrosity of the areas Peninsula have yet to test. We all know there is water and uranium in the Powder River Basin, seems everyone is blind sided by the word Uranium.
Peninsula has said in their report of Sept 08 that “that “the historic testing addressed all key criteria for a successful ISR operation” and provides a high level of confidence that the Lance Projects are suitable for ISR recovery.” It’s all based on historic data which still needs to be confirmed with some modern day testing, hydrostatic testing is one. Water flows are affected by CBM and would have also moved a great deal from the days of the “three mile” incident (which is also used by Strathmore Minerals Corp in their blurbs).
Peninsula have way more work to do, they are not even half way there, lets hope there are no more “hair cuts” for the shareholders.
And am awaiting the hydrostatic testing.
All the best.
What is this, an attempted threat, why the mods haven’t told you to pull your head in. Can you explain what it is your trying to say or do you just get off on being a company stooge and this is how you wield your big stick.
I have not mentioned the word lying nor have accused the company directors of such. These are your words not mine or is this a Freudian slip and you know more about the directors then the ordinary man in the street? Stop trying to sensationalise
You don’t find it unusual that Mr Grigor can be so nonchalant regarding JORC.
Mr Grigor put it out there in the public domain he said in his opening discussion that they don’t have a resource and that you need to comply with JORC standards. The reasoning behind this is that they need to tie up land and if word gets out it only makes it harder. If we believe Z-Trader who says
then really Mr Grigors argument doesn’t hold true.
Also Strathmore Minerals Corp a Canadian explorer is also a dominant land holder in the Powder River area, as a matter of fact they seem not to dissimilar to Peninsula, why they even have similar presentation diagrams and also have historical data. I can’t believe that the Land owners in Wyoming don’t now what is going on with all this activity around.
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/fulp/fulp031109.html
Coal Bed Methane is an integral part of the Powder River Basin and does have an effect on water levels. Here is a quote “Coal bed methane extraction requires that the coal seams be drained of water, emptying aquifers that may take hundreds of years to refill”…
http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/crow/hydrology.html
Why would you not take Mr Grigor to task on that he brings up CBM in his discussion? Maybe sections of the lands Peninsula acquired are shared with CBM operations and there is a need to go deeper.
Hangseng you have proved nothing to me regarding the hydrosity of the areas Peninsula have yet to test. We all know there is water and uranium in the Powder River Basin, seems everyone is blind sided by the word Uranium.
Peninsula has said in their report of Sept 08 that “that “the historic testing addressed all key criteria for a successful ISR operation” and provides a high level of confidence that the Lance Projects are suitable for ISR recovery.” It’s all based on historic data which still needs to be confirmed with some modern day testing, hydrostatic testing is one. Water flows are affected by CBM and would have also moved a great deal from the days of the “three mile” incident (which is also used by Strathmore Minerals Corp in their blurbs).
Peninsula have way more work to do, they are not even half way there, lets hope there are no more “hair cuts” for the shareholders.
And am awaiting the hydrostatic testing.
All the best.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,004
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Unfortunately, we are not in a position to varrify it. That's my only point.
The company wouldn't overestimate the potential, of course.
What we have correct is that the company has the historical drill results and is making a claim of xx pounds exploration potential.
Unfortunately, we are not in a position to varrify it. That's my only point.
The company wouldn't overestimate the potential, of course.
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
1) Historical data was independently analysed by World Industrial Minerals and the results were released to market 7 July 2008.
2) A drilling program carried out in 2008 verified the existence of Uranium and provided the basis for current estimates at Ross and Barber sites, as well as Lance as a whole. Refer announcement on 14 Oct 2008
It's hard to imagine how you could believe the Uranium has disappeared, especially not after drilling last year has confirmed that Ross, the site of the 40000lb per year pilot ISR plant in the 1978, still has between 6-9 mlbs of Uranium alone. The historical data is good, and anything above 10 mlbs of recoverable Uranium will send PEN sky-rocketing.
For all his lack of tact and the annoying habit of exagerating everything and only superficially parsing what he's responding to, Jetblack is correct to be focussing on the water situation. That's the key. We know the Uranium is there, but the question is whether or not it's recoverable. Jetblack is scared that CBM mining has sucked all the water out of the Powder River Basin. So am I, because it'd be a show stopper. Where we seem to differ is in our tolerance for risk and our interpretation of the impact of CBM mining.
My own view is that high risk is required for high rewards. When all the doubts have been removed the share price will already have moved much higher. I'm yet to see any convincing evidence that CBM mining has already substantially lowered water levels. From what I've read CBM operations only artificially lower the water table in a 3 mile radius of their location, and long term effects across the whole area are unlikely until 2017. The reality is no one knows what the truth is. Not jetblack, not warwick, not me, so no one should be arguing as if they know 100% what the situation is. It's all about using your judgement and putting an appropriate amount of money in to suit your own tolerance for risk and whatever your trading plan is. Right now, I'm comfortable with the amount of money I stand to lose if the worst comes to pass because I think the probability of that is quite small.
z-trader
What we have correct is that the company has the historical drill results and is making a claim of xx pounds exploration potential.
Unfortunately, we are not in a position to varrify it. That's my only point.
The company wouldn't overestimate the potential, of course.
1) Historical data was independently analysed by World Industrial Minerals and the results were released to market 7 July 2008.
2) A drilling program carried out in 2008 verified the existence of Uranium and provided the basis for current estimates at Ross and Barber sites, as well as Lance as a whole. Refer announcement on 14 Oct 2008
It's hard to imagine how you could believe the Uranium has disappeared, especially not after drilling last year has confirmed that Ross, the site of the 40000lb per year pilot ISR plant in the 1978, still has between 6-9 mlbs of Uranium alone. The historical data is good, and anything above 10 mlbs of recoverable Uranium will send PEN sky-rocketing.
For all his lack of tact and the annoying habit of exagerating everything and only superficially parsing what he's responding to, Jetblack is correct to be focussing on the water situation. That's the key. We know the Uranium is there, but the question is whether or not it's recoverable. Jetblack is scared that CBM mining has sucked all the water out of the Powder River Basin. So am I, because it'd be a show stopper. Where we seem to differ is in our tolerance for risk and our interpretation of the impact of CBM mining.
My own view is that high risk is required for high rewards. When all the doubts have been removed the share price will already have moved much higher. I'm yet to see any convincing evidence that CBM mining has already substantially lowered water levels. From what I've read CBM operations only artificially lower the water table in a 3 mile radius of their location, and long term effects across the whole area are unlikely until 2017. The reality is no one knows what the truth is. Not jetblack, not warwick, not me, so no one should be arguing as if they know 100% what the situation is. It's all about using your judgement and putting an appropriate amount of money in to suit your own tolerance for risk and whatever your trading plan is. Right now, I'm comfortable with the amount of money I stand to lose if the worst comes to pass because I think the probability of that is quite small.
z-trader
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,004
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Please show me YOUR analysis of the exploration potential.
Look, it might be there, but you're relying on the analysis of the company.
What WE need is lengths x widths x depths x average grades x density factors for a guestimate of a potential resource base.
Or, however you do it for these types of deposits.
If you can do that, then great.
Otherwise, you're at the mercy of the company. If you believe them, all well and good.
You're missing my point.
Please show me YOUR analysis of the exploration potential.
Look, it might be there, but you're relying on the analysis of the company.
What WE need is lengths x widths x depths x average grades x density factors for a guestimate of a potential resource base.
Or, however you do it for these types of deposits.
If you can do that, then great.
Otherwise, you're at the mercy of the company. If you believe them, all well and good.
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals
Taking paranoia to that level isn't practical. Did you read the entire announcement on 14 Oct 2008? At the bottom you'll find the confirmation drilling data.
I don't understand how you can practically be that paranoid. The only way to know how much Uranium is there is to drill. The only company willing to pay for drilling in that area is Peninsula, but you don't trust anything Peninsula reports, even when independently verified! So there's no way for you to ever be convinced as far as I can see.
What exactly are you waiting for?
z-trader
Taking paranoia to that level isn't practical. Did you read the entire announcement on 14 Oct 2008? At the bottom you'll find the confirmation drilling data.
I don't understand how you can practically be that paranoid. The only way to know how much Uranium is there is to drill. The only company willing to pay for drilling in that area is Peninsula, but you don't trust anything Peninsula reports, even when independently verified! So there's no way for you to ever be convinced as far as I can see.
What exactly are you waiting for?
z-trader
