PEN - Peninsula Energy

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

z-trader said:

Taking paranoia to that level isn't practical.

Click to expand...

Seen too many people get burnt by dis and mis information.

I suppose all us mug investors can do is believe the company.

Hope these guys are on the ball for holders.

All I can recommend for potential investors is to DYO research research research. And for me that goes beyond believing what is written in a power point presentation. Maybe I've just got too much time on my hands.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

kennas said:

Seen too many people get burnt by dis and mis information.

I suppose all us mug investors can do is believe the company.

Hope these guys are on the ball for holders.

All I can recommend for potential investors is to DYO research research research. And for me that goes beyond believing what is written in a power point presentation. Maybe I've just got too much time on my hands.

Click to expand...

I agree totally kennas. You're very wise in my opinion. Trust no one in the financial world is how I approach it too. However, I don't know how we can get information on contained Uranium except through the company itself. If you've got a better way I'd love to know what it is because the more I can minimise the need for trust the better my odds are.

All the best.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

Highlites from the announcement today:

LANCE PROJECT: CORE TESTS RETURN POSITIVE RESULTS & DRILLING RE-COMMENCES

Highlights

* Excellent permeability and porosity results achieved from drill core tests confirm historic testing and the applicability of ISR mining methods

* Drilling re-commences at the Lance Projects targeting extensions of mineralisation at Ross and Barber

This is further confirmation that the site still has all the properties required for a successful In Situ Recovery operation as it did in the late 1970s. We now know that water can flow through the aquifers at well above the rate required for efficient profitable operation. Now we need re-confirmation of the hydrological situation, however with a successful plant at the same site in the past, higher annual rainfall than in the 70s, and no credible cause to believe the aquifers have been significantly drawn down, IMHO the risk of not reaching development is minimal.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

They have proved porosity in the sandstone pockets, not hard to do. It seems though that the primary rock in the area is shale, not a porous rock and indicative of coal in the Powder River Area.

IMO it means that any potential ISR will be spanned over quite a large area due to these pockets of sandstone, this will change the overall uranium extracted (alot of these historical holes will be duds), when they define a mineral resource. They are just only scratching the surface.

All the best.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

They have proved porosity in the sandstone pockets, not hard to do. It seems though that the primary rock in the area is shale, not a porous rock and indicative of coal in the Powder River Area.

IMO it means that any potential ISR will be spanned over quite a large area due to these pockets of sandstone, this will change the overall uranium extracted (alot of these historical holes will be duds), when they define a mineral resource. They are just only scratching the surface.

All the best.

Click to expand...

Here's an important snippet you missed (hidden nearly half way down on page 2). ;-)

"The mineralised sandstone units commonly contain thin (one foot or less thick) splits of siltstone and shale with low permeability’s. Hydrologic testing by the NuBeth JV showed that these discontinuous shale splits do not significantly affect the permeability of the sand units, and tend to increase the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability, which is advantageous in helping control the flow of solution during ISR mining. This is typical of uraniferous sandstone units in Wyoming. The permeability of the sandstones tested, commonly over 2,000 mD (and up to over 5,000 mD) meets or exceeds that of nearby ISR Projects currently operating or being developed."

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

z-trader said:

This is typical of uraniferous sandstone units in Wyoming. The permeability of the sandstones tested, commonly over 2,000 mD (and up to over 5,000 mD) meets or exceeds that of nearby ISR Projects currently operating or being developed."

z-trader

Click to expand...

So 6 out of 24 holes were between 2000mD - 5000mD thats 25% success . Based on this sample means potential Uranium extracted could be only 25% of PEN estimates.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

So 6 out of 24 holes were between 2000mD - 5000mD thats 25% success . Based on this sample means potential Uranium extracted could be only 25% of PEN estimates.

Click to expand...

Jet, if you look at the table contained in the report you'll see that there were only four holes (RMRD0001 - 4) drilled and from those 4 holes 24 core samples were analysed from different depths. Each hole has sections of porous and non-porous material, at different depths. The requirement for successful In Situ Recovery is a porous layer (aka a "roll front") containing Uranium sandwiched between two non-porous layers. So even at a site with geology that simple, you get 2 sections of non-porous material for every 1 section of Uranium bearing porous sediment.

The interesting thing about Lance is that we know from drilling in the 2nd half of 2008 that some drill holes intercepted up to 5 stacked roll fronts on top of each other. The more Uranium deposits stacked on top of each other at different depths the better the ratio between well fields and recoverable pounds.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

Z, thanks for correcting that. But it would seem then from the table hole 1 & 2 are not that great. Which is 50/50 result.

How many core samples from a hole with 2000mD - 5000mD are needed before its deemed to be successful? Mind you there has been no mention of any water contained in these holes that were sampled.

Very small sample size we are dealing with.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

Z, thanks for correcting that. But it would seem then from the table hole 1 & 2 are not that great. Which is 50/50 result.

How many core samples from a hole with 2000mD - 5000mD are needed before its deemed to be successful? Mind you there has been no mention of any water contained in these holes that were sampled.

Very small sample size we are dealing with.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're criticising from the perspective that you need to be close to 100% sure it's a profitable Uranium mine. By the time there's that much certainty, there will be very little profit left.

The historical data is valid enough to be used for JORC so I don't think you should be ignoring it as much as you are. It took 8 years to drill out and analyse the historical data. You should ask yourself why Peninsula doesn't have to spend 8 years redrilling and redefining Lance. The answer is that the historical data carries a lot of weight. Sure PEN needs to do some confirmation drilling and confirm hydrology and metallurgy, but the key word is "confirm". That's all that is being done. There's already a huge database of information, and so far it has proven several times to be consistent with the confirmation drilling and analysis. I already have a 70% degree of confidence in the historical data, whereas you seem to have 0-10% confidence in it.

Suspecting that water levels/pressure might have changed is reasonable even though you haven't made a strong case, but worrying that rock formations have significantly changed in a mere 30 years is going a bit far IMO.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

I dont have a risk/return profile for this stock so I'm not affected by its share price, I stated this in my first post on PEN.

I dont know what all the historical grades for the area are, Do you? All I know is that the company have painted a picture with a very large brush.

Z, as you are 70% confident can you tell me,
How much core samples from a hole between 2000mD-5000mD is needed for it to be ISR worthy?

I note hole two had only one core sample and also the majority of cores were deep, (I say this as Mr Grigor talked about depth), or is this not considered deep by ISR standards?

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

I dont know what all the historical grades for the area are, Do you? All I know is that the company have painted a picture with a very large brush.

Click to expand...

Of course I know what the historical grades are. I've actually read PEN's announcements. If you had read their announcements, then you'd know too, and then perhaps you'd even have a rational basis for judging the company. Saying they've "painted a picture with a very large brush" when you don't even know the basics is ridiculous. If you don't know the facts, you aren't in a position to judge whether the company is distorting them or not.

Z, as you are 70% confident can you tell me,
How much core samples from a hole between 2000mD-5000mD is needed for it to be ISR worthy?

Click to expand...

Milli Darcys (mD) are a measure of flow rate. The faster the flow rate, the faster the recovery of Uranium. A milli darcy rate of 500 is considered acceptable for profitable ISR mining, so Lance has a good margin of safety.

I note hole two had only one core sample and also the majority of cores were deep, (I say this as Mr Grigor talked about depth), or is this not considered deep by ISR standards?

Click to expand...

120-160m is not considered deep.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

z-trader said:

Milli Darcys (mD) are a measure of flow rate. The faster the flow rate, the faster the recovery of Uranium. A milli darcy rate of 500 is considered acceptable for profitable ISR mining, so Lance has a good margin of safety.

Click to expand...

The 500mD was footnoted in the announcement from the "Pounds in the Ground" article. I cant find any reference in that article which says that 500mD is considered acceptable for profitable ISR mining.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

The 500mD was footnoted in the announcement from the "Pounds in the Ground" article. I cant find any reference in that article which says that 500mD is considered acceptable for profitable ISR mining.

Click to expand...

Maybe you could try looking for the answers to your questions. I find this site pretty useful for finding answers:

www.google.com

;-)

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

I was also wondering why PEN did not elaborate further by marrying the grade results of the four holes chosen from 3rd November 2008 with their latest core results.

Assuming 500mD is acceptable ISR does that also mean its economical?

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

Here's an interesting fact:

If the 4 trillion gallons of water predicted to be withdrawn from the Powder River Basin by Coal Bed Methane mining in the Powder River Basin by 2015-2017 were withdrawn tomorrow it would only lower the ground water level by about 25-30 cm.

FYI: The Powder River Basin spans about 22000 square miles and is estimated to contain approximately 3.6 x 10^13 cubic feet of ground water.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

Z, thanks for the fact, but it has alot to do with the recharging of aquifiers, when I mentioned "show me the water", it was more to do with their hydro testing.

As the recharging of aquifiers is a vital part of ISR mining. Not all of the Powder River basin shares the same lithology. PEN's area is in the Belle Fourche River Basin. The primary rock there is shale as evident in PEN's latest core samples.


Here is a link which you might like to look at, it mentions that shale layers impede recharging as it talks about aquifiers. As it does mention that the Sundance area is a productive aquifier, but aquifiers also serve farming irrigation purposes so we dont know for certain the relience for that sector on this aquifier.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/1557352/USGS-hydrologicbudgets

Anyway, having said that PEN have loads more work to do on ths area. Historical data is everywhere, most if not all the major and Junior Uranium companies that are in the Powder River Basin are loaded with historical data, but they still have to drill quite a number of holes in the ground and do thorough testing.

So, I will now just watch and see what PEN's hydro test brings.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

This is the last I post on this stock until there is more clarification regarding the pump test yet to be conducted on the site. If anything this post is basically to re-instate the previous comment I made regarding the better part of ISR mining is in the south of the Powder River Basin.

I’m not trying what-so-ever to down ramp this stock but there are a few things that did not sit with me, it was more to do with the large brush strokes the company uses to paint its picture when there is quite a lot of detail yet to be confirmed. I also don’t want to parrot fashion PEN’s announcements and say “well there is your answer”

I was curious as to what did happen with the Excalibur projects that were mentioned in the “Pounds in the Ground” article as they were talking about pump testing this area, as it was in the north east of the Powder River Basin I thought it has the closest of nearology I could find. It’s all public record you can search for it on Uranez Energy Corp web site.

Anyway I emailed the company and the CEO very graciously and generously wrote back to me. Here is an answer regarding the pump test to the Excalibur area from the CEO. Please note that irrespective of it being from a different company (a large one at that) this is merely to give those out there some guide or a further education as to what is yet to be or can be expected from ISR mining. (Nichols and Hank are part of Excalibur properties)

“As to your questions regarding hydrogeology and pump tests; numerous pump tests were conducted at both Nichols Ranch and Hank as part of the permitting process and as part of our technical evaluation of the properties. The details and results of the aquifer pump tests are included in our permit applications. Two tables from the license applications that summarize the pump test results are attached. In general, the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) is less than 500 MD but is still adequate for solution mining. Typically, in the Powder River Basin, the uranium ore-sands have higher hydraulic conductivity in the southern part of the basin and get less permeable as you go to the north. Cameco’s Smith Ranch solution mine in the south has better permeability, in general, than our properties in the north. However, we are satisfied that the hydraulic conductivity is adequate for solution mining as our management team conducted two test solution mining operations near our Nichols Ranch property back in the early 1980s when they worked for Uranerz USA, Inc. (the old Uranerz). “

DYOR, and all the best.

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

Z, thanks for the fact, but it has alot to do with the recharging of aquifiers, when I mentioned "show me the water", it was more to do with their hydro testing.

As the recharging of aquifiers is a vital part of ISR mining. Not all of the Powder River basin shares the same lithology. PEN's area is in the Belle Fourche River Basin. The primary rock there is shale as evident in PEN's latest core samples.

Click to expand...

I don't think you really understand the lithology. There's multiple lithologies stacked on top of each other from different ages in the past. The lance formation, and the fort union formations are mostly sandstone. However, above, below and in between there are layers of shale, etc. It's expected, and in some cases it actually helps (ie shale splits).

Here is a link which you might like to look at, it mentions that shale layers impede recharging as it talks about aquifiers. As it does mention that the Sundance area is a productive aquifier, but aquifiers also serve farming irrigation purposes so we dont know for certain the relience for that sector on this aquifier.

Click to expand...

Lance is above the Lance formation at the edge of the Powder River Basin, not the Sundance or Gypsum formation in the black hills.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1557352/USGS-hydrologicbudgets

Click to expand...

An interesting doc, but I don't think it's very relevant to Lance as it covers a different area with different lithology.

Anyway, having said that PEN have loads more work to do on ths area. Historical data is everywhere, most if not all the major and Junior Uranium companies that are in the Powder River Basin are loaded with historical data, but they still have to drill quite a number of holes in the ground and do thorough testing.

So, I will now just watch and see what PEN's hydro test brings.

Click to expand...

Meh. Your posts are really just convoluted ways of saying you have low risk tolerance, and haven't researched thoroughly enough to mitigate any risk. Pity talking about your trading style isn't that relevant in the PEN thread.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:

This is the last I post on this stock until there is more clarification regarding the pump test yet to be conducted on the site. If anything this post is basically to re-instate the previous comment I made regarding the better part of ISR mining is in the south of the Powder River Basin.

Click to expand...

PEN isn't in the north of the Powder River Basin. The north stretches well into Montana. Besides which "better" means nothing. $1000001 is better than $1000000, but I'd still be happy with either. It's an extremely weak criticism based on extremely lazy research.

I’m not trying what-so-ever to down ramp this stock but there are a few things that did not sit with me, it was more to do with the large brush strokes the company uses to paint its picture when there is quite a lot of detail yet to be confirmed. I also don’t want to parrot fashion PEN’s announcements and say “well there is your answer”

Click to expand...

Yeah, you probably aren't trying to down ramp. Just defending your view. I don't think your view is based on much though. It amounts to a generalised fear of the unknown. If that's your trading style, then cool, but I'm not sure why you think you need to share your fears with us.

I was curious as to what did happen with the Excalibur projects that were mentioned in the “Pounds in the Ground” article as they were talking about pump testing this area, as it was in the north east of the Powder River Basin I thought it has the closest of nearology I could find. It’s all public record you can search for it on Uranez Energy Corp web site.

Anyway I emailed the company and the CEO very graciously and generously wrote back to me. Here is an answer regarding the pump test to the Excalibur area from the CEO. Please note that irrespective of it being from a different company (a large one at that) this is merely to give those out there some guide or a further education as to what is yet to be or can be expected from ISR mining. (Nichols and Hank are part of Excalibur properties)

“As to your questions regarding hydrogeology and pump tests; numerous pump tests were conducted at both Nichols Ranch and Hank as part of the permitting process and as part of our technical evaluation of the properties. The details and results of the aquifer pump tests are included in our permit applications. Two tables from the license applications that summarize the pump test results are attached. In general, the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) is less than 500 MD but is still adequate for solution mining. Typically, in the Powder River Basin, the uranium ore-sands have higher hydraulic conductivity in the southern part of the basin and get less permeable as you go to the north. Cameco’s Smith Ranch solution mine in the south has better permeability, in general, than our properties in the north. However, we are satisfied that the hydraulic conductivity is adequate for solution mining as our management team conducted two test solution mining operations near our Nichols Ranch property back in the early 1980s when they worked for Uranerz USA, Inc. (the old Uranerz). “

DYOR, and all the best.

Click to expand...

So you check with another company, they tell you results far worse than PEN's are sufficient for profit, and you run screaming? As I've said several times, this isn't about PEN, it's about your risk tolerance level. I respect that you trade different to me, but it's annoying that you keep repeating baseless and poorly researched criticisms. Never once have you made a clear cut argument such as:

1. CBM depletes water levels within 3 miles
2. There's a CBM mine near Lance within 3 miles
3. Therefore you're concerned.

None of your criticisms are specific. That's my problem with what you've written. Just seems like you're spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

z-trader

Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

A little perspective, sorely needed here.

As for "nearology, Lance is 120Kms (to the north) away from Nichols and Hank. Lance is also a lot closer to the rail infrastructure of Gillette and Moorecroft just out of interest.

Very glad you brought up about permeability and porosity as well.

You cite the CEO of Uranez as saying about Nichols - "...the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) is less than 500 MD but is still adequate for solution mining."

This from PEN's announcement 21st July 2009

"Core Tests
Core Lab, a reservoir characterisation laboratory based in Denver, Colorado, has tested 24 core plugs taken from the four holes cored at Ross in 2008 for porosity, permeability and density. The samples taken from the uranium hosting sandstone demonstrated very high permeability’s and porosities, averaging 2,400 millidarcy’s (mD) and 42% porosity. The density determinations will be utilised in resource estimations planned for 2010.
High porosity and permeability values in uranium-enriched sandstones are necessary for the efficient operation of ISR uranium recovery operations. Sandstone permeability’s in excess of 500 mD are acceptable in the ISR industry2. Porosities in excess of 30% are very favourable for ISR recovery of uranium."
http://www.bourseinvestor.com/bi4/pdfnews/default.asp?d=00970104&f=20090721

So Nichols has 500mD and Lance has an average of 2,400 mD. Quite a difference there and confirmed.

As for water do a little more homework and you will find PEN has already stated that the uranium hosting sandstone is beneath the top of the water table. Love to point you to this but it is freely available in the announcements on PEN's website. Quite well documented in fact, I am sure you will find it with ease as I did. This will give you an opportunity to learn quite a lot more than what you currently demonstrate here. www.peninsulaminerals.com.au

You have not brought up one comment that substantiates your view on PEN at Lance. You have however chipped at the edges of other companies and information only to further strengthen PEN's position on each occasion, well done .

Not trying to downramp? Not a bad effort at it though.