This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

PEN - Peninsula Energy

Jump to new
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Thankyou for responding, albeit I thought, in a tad harsher tone than I would have expected. I understand it may seem like a strange question and I respect your willingness to respond to what is essentially none of my business. After seeing you interrogate others for over a year, it speaks volumes for your integrity that you're willing to answer somewhat intrusive questions instead of ask them.

With respect, I'd just like to clarify something in your answer though. You said you've never received anything that a reasonable person would construe as inside information. However, that only addresses half of the question I asked. So that no one is left with any doubt about the situation, can you also confirm that you haven't received any correspondence where the author has implied or otherwise construed that they are passing on information not yet released to market where the information would likely to have a material impact on the share price.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN looks ready to run

hangseng said:
z-trader I am interested to know why do you believe "there'll be some jaws dropped on that one" regarding Barber?
Click to expand...

With all due respect you omitted the word "chance" from the quote, and ignored the previous sentence. Completely changes the meaning.

Although the tails do spread out for miles but the extraction area is at the nose of the roll fronts.
Click to expand...

Each well pattern can only address a limited amount of area. I don't believe well patterns addressing the nose can also address the whole tail if it stretches out for miles. That means more well patterns and more cost. All academic though until we know the well pattern used, the spacing, costs, recovery rate, and other details. I just noted it as an area of interest. Not drawing any conclusions yet, but will be keeping a close eye on it.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

By any chance Z, have you previously posted on another stock forum under the names of Depth Trader and/or Stochman?

On second thought, don't worry about it Z. But you have a good day and let's hope that both of us 'longs' get some joy from holding PEN in the months ahead.

Regards
Reichman
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Since you took the time to reply to my post, I'm baffled why you didn't respond to the central question (how hard is it to simply write "no"?). Very puzzling so I hope you clarify the issue as you've asked others to do so many times in the past.

I'll repeat the question Reichman. Can you also confirm that you haven't received any correspondence where the author has implied or otherwise construed that they are passing on information not yet released to market where the information would be likely to have a material impact on the share price.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN looks ready to run

z-trader said:
With all due respect you omitted the word "chance" from the quote, and ignored the previous sentence. Completely changes the meaning.

z-trader
Click to expand...

Ok point taken, so why do you believe there may be a "chance" as you indicate?

If chance is taken as odds then the odds are in favour of a very positive outcome so far. Unless you have seen or heard anything to the contrary, I definately haven't and not from lack of trying.

As for the water flow, hydraulics is a marvellous aspect of physics. So much like electricity it will take the path of least resistance. The distance becomes irrellevant apart from it increases capacity to recover from the ore body. Back to permeability and "Darcy ratings", both of which are in favour of a very positive outcome at both Ross and Barber.
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Personally think that anyone that would engage in any such conversation on a PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM would need there heads read.

But hey makes for intresting reading.

as you were.
 
Re: PEN looks ready to run

hangseng said:
Ok point taken, so why do you believe there may be a "chance" as you indicate?
Click to expand...

I thought I made it clear in the previous sentence why. There's much more certainty surrounding Ross than Barber, because Ross is where the pilot plant was successfully operated.

Hydraulics may indeed be fascinating, but the laws of physics and economics still apply to the project. As the diameter of a circle doubles, the area quadruples and the volume of water needing to be moved and the energy required to move it will increase exponentially. There's no "free lunch" in physics.

Not quite sure what your comment is supposed to imply, but there are certainly limits to how much area of land can be addressed by a well pattern. Even with great porosity and permeability, I expect the well fields will be quite expansive just to address the noses. Addressing the middles and tails will probably be possible to a point (pardon the pun) but I expect a lot of tail Uranium will be left in the ground until prices improve. It's a much wiser course of action to target the low hanging fruit first anyway.

As I've repeated, it's just an area of interest. I want to know why the language around grade has changed and whether it's changed for economically sound reasons.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

Thanks for the response z-trader. I could have come to the assumption regarding the differences between Ross and Barber. It was just your comment came across that there may be some other reasoning as it was a rather certain sounding statement.

All good though and now explained.

With regard to this comment:
"...the area quadruples and the volume of water needing to be moved and the energy required to move it will increase exponentially"

It is irrellevant to the extraction process as the pumps will be designed for a certain head height (lift) and flow rate. The amount of water it draws from is just that a large area of water from which to draw upon. The higher the head height to the surface, the less energy required to pump it out.

Akin to conventional mining, whereas you may have a very large resource but you will use the same equipment to dig it up. It will just take longer to exhaust the supply. The increase in energy used is only related to the additional time taken to extract the ore, not because it is a big area. There is no exponential increase in energy used, in fact it is a linear metric increase.

The engineering studies and hydrology results to come will be of great interest to me. Far more so than the initial jorc. Although I will say a surprise to the downside on Jorc will have me and others thinking again on our investment. From the results to date I am not expecting that to occur.

They still have quite a few boxes to tick yet, that I agree on. However at least they are progressing positively and in the main according to the announced timelines.
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

nunthewiser said:
Personally think that anyone that would engage in any such conversation on a PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM would need there heads read.

But hey makes for intresting reading.

as you were.
Click to expand...

Reichman has employed A Current Affair style journalism tactics on many many contributers to the PEN threads over the year or so I've seen him in action. He often plays the "I'm just asking questions" card, but I think he's just learned that it's no fun being asked to justify yourself in public. Especially when it really has nothing to do with what we're here to discuss, Peninsula Minerals.

I genuinely "reich" him and his puns , but as I said before I really wish he'd direct his investigative talents towards discovering what's fact and fiction about PEN.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

z-trader, I like the fact that you are obviously the forum expert on PEN, and with 20% of your portfolio in it, and long, it gives me great confidence.
Thank you.

I have liked the story for a few weeks now, so am glad I found this forum.

Reichman, I also think it would be good for z-trader to answer your question about other names, as you have been accomodating with him it seems.
Fair's fair.

z-trader, do you post on share scene? That's the other one I've heard of.
What is your name there?
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


The volume of water increasing exponentially is more important on the injection well side, for obvious reasons which I'm sure you're aware of.

Not sure we actually disagree on much, but maybe you could suggest the minimum and maximum distance you're expecting between the injection wells and the extraction wells. Too abstract at the moment.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Z, depth, stoch or whoever you are, forgive me, but I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity. Do you actually own shares in PEN or are we talking about another company?
On the other forum I read and occasionally post on, all that the bulk of posters seem to write about is why does the shareprice stay the same, even with all the great news we read in the ple*****a of positive company announcements? I would have thought these announcements would've had a material impact on the share price, but no, the shareprice remains pretty much stagnant while we all sit, wait and hope. Well I sit, wait and hope because, unlike you, I'm not a full time trader and I know little to nothing about the markets machinations.

Therefore I can confirm I haven't received any correspondence that likely had a material impact on the share price. I did however once read a comparison of sorts between Extract and Pen from someone who at the time was perceived by me to be a respected poster, but given he now appears to be backtracking on that comment, I can't even hold onto that with any confidence.

Z-trader - I may be wrong, and if I am, I will now apologise in advance, but given I am fairly confident that you are a multi-nicker who harasses people, I now respectfully inform you that I will no longer be conversing with you.

I wish you well in your future endeavours and if you do actually own shares in PEN, let's hope we both wind up on the right side of the ledger.

Regards
Reichman
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals



Respected ASF colleagues

First of all I do not hold PEN and I am not a day time trader either.
However this is not PEN related directly.
Having seen the friendly and healthy conversations may come a bit rough between some of you, probably it is best to sort such issues using PM box.

Just a friendly suggestion without trying to offend any one or pretending to be an expert on human psychology.

Best wishes and please do not leave the forum because of such personality issues
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Yes I am aware of the importance of the injection well aspect. However the metrics that will finally be used and distances etc, is as much a mystery to me as it is to all shareholders and watchers of PEN atm. All we do know is the permeability and Darcy Rating of which is very high for the location. Five times higher than nearby Uranerz.

The only ones that would know are the mining engineers doing the study and I doubt if they have that level of detail as yet. They may have a basis for design in progress but even that will change during the study phases.

That information we have to wait on and I really look forward to seeing it.
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

reichman said:
Therefore I can confirm I haven't received any correspondence that likely had a material impact on the share price.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question I asked and you're using weasel words to dodge it, as well as coming up with a spurious pretext for not having to engage in any more obvious dodging of a simple question.

I repeat that I didn't ask if the information had a material impact, I asked if you'd received correspondence where the author implied that they were passing on information that could have such an impact.

Your continual dodging of the question just makes me more and more suspicious. Surely you can just categorically say that no you haven't received any correspondence like that where the author implied it was something the market didn't know about? I've suspected that there's a lot of leakage out of PEN for a while now, your response to such a simple question has me really wondering now.

I did however once read a comparison of sorts between Extract and Pen from someone who at the time was perceived by me to be a respected poster, but given he now appears to be backtracking on that comment
Click to expand...

I already answered your question regarding that and I made it clear that there was no conflict between what I was saying then and now. PEN themselves claim to be on the way to becoming a 400 million dollar company, that's about a quarter of EXTs current market cap (can't be bothered checking for exact accuracy).

As I asked you originally, where is the perceived conflict between the following statements:

July
1) PEN could potentially prove up 250 mlbs

Yest
2) Exchange rate could affect PEN's valuation adversely
3) There's more uncertainty surrounding Barber than Ross

I just don't see how the statements conflict, and you certainly haven't explained how other than to superficially label one paragraph as bullish and one bearish, a gross simplification.

I'm fairly confident that you are a multi-nicker who harasses people.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're a multi-nicker but you've been harassing people with mike munro style journalism for at least a year and it seems very much like you can't handle your own medicine.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


I'm surprised you took issue with what I originally said when you don't even have a ballpark range for plausible distances between injection and extraction wells. You ought to know at least that it won't be miles, but we do know that the tails do extend over miles.

Therefore, my original statement stands, and if the lowering of the ppm standard is just to superficially increase the reserve estimate then I want to be on top of that ASAP. Given that some sources I've found talk of injection/extraction spacings of just 50-100m, it's quite important once you start chasing the low grade mineral deposits. The marvels of Hydraulics won't save us from the realities of profit margins.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Z man, go through PEN announcements and look at the tables they produce, look at each announcement that talks about increased mineralisation. They selectively pick out the larger mineralisations as the high light (leader) of their announcements.

So you know in the tables where it says PFN GT (ft%) (0.01% cut) = 100ppm

good luck and its good that you question this.
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals

jetblack said:
Z man, go through PEN announcements and look at the tables they produce, look at each announcement that talks about increased mineralisation. They selectively pick out the larger mineralisations as the high light (leader) of their announcements.
Click to expand...

It's frustrating not having the full historical data made public, but I'm not sure the cherry picking of results is necessarily a sign of deception. They've given highlights as well as expected ranges for the total size of the mineral resource, signed off by an independent expert.

So you know in the tables where it says PFN GT (ft%) (0.01% cut) = 100ppm
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Grade Thickness is the interval length multipled by average grade. The idea is to distinguish between a 1 foot interval at 100ppm and a 13 foot interval at 100ppm. Obviously the 13 foot intercept contains more Uranium and Grade Thickness captures this in one number. It's especially useful for encapsulating the contained Uranium for holes with multiple interval lengths of varying ppms, since I believe grade thickness figures from each interval can be added together to create a single GT for the entire hole.

For the sake of being factual, the terminology has changed from:

'Of the 28 holes completed in August, 9 contain mineralised intervals that exceed the “rule of
thumb” for economic ISR mineralisation in this setting (a grade thickness product of 0.3ft %
U 3 O 8 ).'

to:

"These 2,043 holes contribute a total of 3,623 reportable intersections exceeding 100ppm eU3O8 (numerous holes have multiple intersections)."

The first, oft-repeated, statement refers to economic ISR mineralisation, whereas the second appears more concerned with what is reportable. I don't see much reason to assume it's anything but JORC compliance related, but it's definitely worth confirming and it'll pay to read future announcements surrounding this issue carefully.

z-trader
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


I could easily pick up (as anyone could) some assumptive figures based on other mines but it is superfluous to do so. You wrongly assume I took issue, I am merely expressing my view of which in part differs from yours.

As I said I await the real data to be announced and will base my evaluation and decisions on that, not on assumptions made on a forum.
 
Re: PEN - Peninsula Minerals


Fair enough, but PEN is a speccie, and some would call the act of making plausible assumptions about the future.... speculating!

z-trader
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
MEE - Metex Resources
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
54K
Joe Blow
BCC - Buccaneer Energy
16 17 18
Replies
341
Views
72K
zzaaxxss3401
Z
CNF - Continental Goldfields
2 3
Replies
55
Views
17K
Boyou
Uranium in for correction, not a rout
Replies
0
Views
8K
motion
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...