Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

PEN - Peninsula Energy

Jump to new
gnealson wrote:

it's naive to think that large holders will dump their holdings onto the market at any time. Large enough holders generally wait for strength to sell into. So in my opinion, the true test of the top 20 is in play now, not a month ago. We're seeing the price tip over again. Is it technical action only, or is it because of the actions of larger holders like Pewal?

So my question is: Why would the large holders not get out when the price did return to 12c. Seeing as that would have been selling into strength.
 
richy66 said:
gnealson wrote:

it's naive to think that large holders will dump their holdings onto the market at any time. Large enough holders generally wait for strength to sell into. So in my opinion, the true test of the top 20 is in play now, not a month ago. We're seeing the price tip over again. Is it technical action only, or is it because of the actions of larger holders like Pewal?

So my question is: Why would the large holders not get out when the price did return to 12c. Seeing as that would have been selling into strength.
Click to expand...

I already answered this. See point 2 in my original response to Svengali. To repeat myself... I believe larger players are waiting for more clarity on sentiment shifts towards Nuclear energy. When you've got a big stake you can't jump into and out of the stock easily and it doesn't pay to make rash moves. Most have been on the register for a while, so even at 8 cents it wouldn't be a loss for them. So the fact that they haven't left yet means very little one way or the other.

Sticking to what's factual:

1) The share price had already declined to 12-12.5 cents before Fukushima. If Pewal is to be believed, he viewed PEN as over-bought at 15 cents and was selling even then.

2) After PEN fell to 5.5 cents and recovered to 12 cents, it has been sold down heavily since then by someone other than the top 20 I guess (the top 21-100 holders?).

One thing we can say is that the stock is so far being sold down since Fukushima and the chart looks fairly weak right now. Surely we should be observing what is actually happening and trying to understand and explain it, rather than ignoring what is actually happening and focussing on things that haven't changed.

Grant
 
For those who don't know, the facts have changed again today. Fukushima declared as bad or worse than Chernobyl by authorites:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/strong-earthquake-hits-japan-rocks-tokyo/story-e6frg6so-1226037789064

Anyone wondering about what a 'terabecquerel' is, whether it can be converted to a sievert, and on what basis the authorities are now being forced to upgrade the severity of the Fukushima incident to the maximum, you may find this blog page interesting:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/04/japan-considers-raising-nuclear.html

Key extract:

[A] study was conducted by a team of experts from Kyoto University and Hiroshima University ... found cesium-137 at levels between about 590,000 and 2.19 million becquerels per cubic meter [outside the 30 kilometer evacuation zone].

After the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the former Soviet Union in 1986, residents who lived in areas where cesium-137 levels exceeded 555,000 becquerels were forced to move elsewhere.

***

The amounts of cesium-137 found in Iitate were at most four times the figure from Chernobyl.

If more radioactive materials are emitted from the crippled Fukushima plant, the level of cesium-137 could rise even further.
Click to expand...

I see this as pretty significant news. Chernobyl is the benchmark for Nuclear Disaster and it has now been equaled and probably exceeded with a plant that was supposedly leaps and bounds ahead of Chernobyl in terms of safety. I think this will weigh heavily on public perception of the incident as well as political actions for a long time to come.

Grant
 
gnealson said:
For those who don't know, the facts have changed again today. Fukushima declared as bad or worse than Chernobyl by authorites:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/strong-earthquake-hits-japan-rocks-tokyo/story-e6frg6so-1226037789064

Anyone wondering about what a 'terabecquerel' is, whether it can be converted to a sievert, and on what basis the authorities are now being forced to upgrade the severity of the Fukushima incident to the maximum, you may find this blog page interesting:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/04/japan-considers-raising-nuclear.html

Key extract:

I see this as pretty significant news. Chernobyl is the benchmark for Nuclear Disaster and it has now been equaled and probably exceeded with a plant that was supposedly leaps and bounds ahead of Chernobyl in terms of safety. I think this will weigh heavily on public perception of the incident as well as political actions for a long time to come.

Grant
Click to expand...


You are on your own with that highly subjective view Grant.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/12/3189175.htm?site=melbourne

"This is a preliminary assessment and is subject to finalisation by the International Atomic Energy Agency," Japan's nuclear safety watchdog said on Tuesday.

"In terms of volume of radioactive materials released, our estimate shows it is about 10 per cent of what was released by Chernobyl."

The meltdown at Chernobyl, the world's worst peacetime nuclear event, in the then-Soviet Union spewed forth a large volume of toxic radiation, poisoning large areas of land and affecting thousands of lives.

Nuclear industry specialist Murray Jennex, an associate professor at San Diego State University in California, dismissed the comparison with Fukushima.

"It's nowhere near that level. Chernobyl was terrible - it blew and they had no containment, and they were stuck," he said."[Japan's] containment has been holding. The only thing that hasn't is the fuel pool that caught fire."
Click to expand...

Clearly Fukishima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl, that is sensationalistic journalism at best.

I also find it intriguing why you and so many others both here and afar select the PEN threads to post the sensationalist general information. I have 27 uranium stocks on my watchlist and yeas there are more. However you and so mnay others single out PEN to post this and similar general articles, I wonder why if I may ask?

You seemingly have very strong views on this, attempting to counter any positive that PEN has in favour (and PEN has many positives) for a vastly negative and subjective outlook.

But why only PEN?
 
hangseng said:
You are on your own with that highly subjective view Grant.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/12/3189175.htm?site=melbourne



Clearly Fukishima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl, that is sensationalistic journalism at best.
Click to expand...

Finally, some factual debate of fundamentals! Yes, agreed, at this point in time, it appears that overall Fukushima has not exceeded Chernobyl in severity. Thanks for pointing it out.

Still, the jury is not out yet and there's a well established pattern with events like these. Everything is done to cover up and manage the public perception of the incident but gradually over time things often get worse. Take the BP oil spill for a recent example, or Fukushima itself with the Japanese authorities consistently downplaying the severity.

hangseng said:
I also find it intriguing why you and so many others both here and afar select the PEN threads to post the sensationalist general information. I have 27 uranium stocks on my watchlist and yeas there are more. However you and so mnay others single out PEN to post this and similar general articles, I wonder why if I may ask?
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're being objective?

hangseng said:
You seemingly have very strong views on this, attempting to counter any positive that PEN has in favour (and PEN has many positives) for a vastly negative and subjective outlook.
Click to expand...

Why not discuss my views instead of me like you promised only yesterday?

Subjective is a weasel word for 'incorrect'. This is a discussion forum. Instead of just implying my views are incorrect and leaving it at that, why not demonstrate it through discussion? For instance, do you think what I wrote about the RCR valuation of PEN being 5.5-10.5 cents was incorrect? Do you agree that the market got ahead of itself when PEN rose above 11 cents? What's your current valuation of PEN? How much do you expect the DFS announcement to impact the NPV (your best case/worst case estimates)?

Grant
 
Bloomberg
(Updates with comment from Tepco in third paragraph.)

By Yuji Okada and Aaron Sheldrick
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Japan raised the severity rating of
its nuclear crisis to the highest, matching the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster, after increasing radiation prompted the government to
widen the evacuation zone and aftershocks rocked the country.
Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency today raised
the rating to 7. The accident at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station
was previously rated 5 on the global scale, the same as the 1979
partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
The stricken nuclear plant, located about 220 kilometers
(135 miles) north of Tokyo, is leaking radiation in Japan’s
worst civilian nuclear disaster after a magnitude-9 quake and
tsunami on March 11. Tokyo Electric Power Co. said its plant,
which has withstood hundreds of aftershocks, may spew more
radiation than Chernobyl before the crisis is contained.
“The radiation leaks haven’t stopped,” Junichi Matsumoto,
general manager of the utility’s nuclear power and plant fitting
division, said in Tokyo today. “If the leaks continue, the
total radiation from the reactors may exceed” that from
Chernobyl.
The radiation released so far from the Fukushima accident
is estimated to be around 10 percent of that from Chernobyl,
Japan’s nuclear safety agency said earlier.
Today’s rating change won’t lead to a further widening of
the evacuation zone beyond the increase announced yesterday,
Kenkichi Hirose, an adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s
cabinet, said at the nuclear agency’s news conference.

Evacuation Zone

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said yesterday that
residents of some towns beyond the 20-kilometer evacuation zone
around the plant will have a month to move to safer areas.
“In contrast with Chernobyl, we have been able to avoid
direct health risks,” Edano said at a public event in Tokyo
today. “The assessment level of 7 may be the same, but in terms
of its shape and contents, the process has been different."
The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale
rates nuclear accidents in terms of their effects on health and
the environment, according to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which helped set up the system. Each of its seven steps
represents a ten times increase in the severity of the incident
or accident, according to the INES factsheet.
Levels 1 through 3 are classified as incidents and those
from 4 to 7 are defined as accidents. Level 7 means there has
been a ‘‘major release of radioactive material with widespread
health and environmental effects requiring implementation of
planned and extended countermeasures,’’ the factsheet says.

‘Beginning to Wake Up’

The government ‘‘is at last beginning to wake up to the
reality of the scale of the disaster,’’ said Philip White,
International Liaison Officer at the Citizens’ Nuclear
Information Center, a Tokyo-based group opposed to atomic
energy. ‘‘Its belated move to evacuate people from a larger area
around the nuclear plant, likewise, is a recognition that the
impact on public health is potentially much greater than it
first acknowledged.’’
The level 7 assessment is based on the combined severity of
the situation at reactor Nos. 1, 2 and 3.,Hidehiko Nishiyama,
deputy director-general of the nuclear safety agency, said
today.
‘‘Most radioactive substances detected around the plants
were probably released from explosions that happened at the
early stages of the crisis,’’ Kazuhiko Kudo, research professor
of nuclear engineering at Kyushu University, said before the
announcement.
Click to expand...

Doesnt seem sensationalist to me.

Not as bad as Chernobyl in terms of health risk or radioactive materials emitted though, but still bad enough for a (low) 7
 
SevenFX said:
Quote "TOKYO (MarketWatch) ”” Japanese nuclear-safety authorities Tuesday raised their
assessment of the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to the same level
as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japan-upgrades-nuclear-crisis-to-chernobyl-rank-2011-04-11
Click to expand...

Tekman that is purely a reportable level, it isn't a direct comparison with Chernobyl and so far is far from it. Suggesting otherwise at this point is nonsense.

gnealson, "subjective" is a term often used in risk analysis mening to be an individuals viewpoint and bases of views not facts. Extrapolating factual events into a subjective view doesn't make those views factual. An aspect as a facilitator I take people to task on often. It wasn't meant to be derogatory, nor was that my intent.

My question as to why you and others post this information on the PEN threads only was genuine and one I truly find intriguing. Not having a go at you I am just genuinely asking why is it that you find it necessary (your "duty" even as yiou termed it) to post this her and not on any other uranium stock?

This will be interesting how this all pans out with PEN as to who was correct and who wasn't and laso what information was relevant and wasn't. From an investment and trading perspective I can see PEN will offer a lot in the way of learnings for all. As will the Japan events.

One thing is for certain, this was an event caused by an earthquake of massive magnitude and a Tsunami causing unprecedented damage and loss of life from an event like this. It wasn't a plant or design failure, nor operator error, nor violation of safety regulations. It was an unprecedented event that knocked out power (and subsequently flow of pumped cooling water) and all other services from an entire city, not just the nuclear power plant.

Will the Japanese and all other countries around the globe now move away from idyllic coastal living, or move out of high rise apartments and office blocks from fear of anther similar event such as this. Simple answer is no they won't, logic will prevail as usual.

Like Three Mile Island, the catastrophic accident at Chernobyl was caused by gross violations of operating rules and regulations. The three events simply cannot be compared,as much as people try they simply cannot be aligned based on the hiistoric facts.

Me like many others far more knowledgable than me, believe that sentiment will once again change based on facts. The main fact that nuclear energy is here to stay.

PEN will be well situated to take advantage accordingly.
 
hangseng said:
Clearly Fukishima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl, that is sensationalistic journalism at best.

I also find it intriguing why you and so many others both here and afar select the PEN threads to post the sensationalist general information. I have 27 uranium stocks on my watchlist and yeas there are more. However you and so mnay others single out PEN to post this and similar general articles, I wonder why if I may ask?

You seemingly have very strong views on this, attempting to counter any positive that PEN has in favour (and PEN has many positives) for a vastly negative and subjective outlook.

But why only PEN?
Click to expand...

At the end of the day Hang we will probably be very thankful that all the scaremongering and hysterical posts about nuclear holocaust were put on the PEN threads both here and elsewhere. It has shaken out all the weak hands and put more and more shares into fewer stronger hands. It will just mean when the inevitable rises happen they will be much much higher for low cost ISR producers like PEN who will survive better during lower U prices than high cost conventional miners.
 
I find it interesting how the general concensus is so ready to compare the current situation so tightly with previous events ie 3 mile and Chernobyl with regards to the fall out for the nuclear renaissance. Mid 70s and the mid 80s. Think about it, would we be sitting hear conversing over facts on either of the previous occasions? The world is a completely different world to those era's. We are now given a tyraid of fact and fiction that is the free media on every little event. In 2011, even at the minute I can find out first hand what has occurred in Japan in a key stroke. Remember fear is in the unknown. The unknown after prevoius events lasted for years, with the web so entrenched I strongly doubt whether the same duration of inuendo and misinformation will endure.

I believe Pen will survive to take advantage of the rebound:
1. Its low cost.
2. Management has a proven track record.
3. It has Major shareholders whom appear to be hanging around.
4. Its second project, Karroo has only begun to scrap the surface.
5. Acquisition?
 
Fact 1: Fukishima is not the only Nuclear Power Station in the world;
Fact 2: There are hundreds more Nuclear Power stations in the planning stages for China, India and the rest of the world;
Fact 3: The demand for Yellow Cake is not going to evaporate any time soon.

If PEN can produce yellowcake, they will have a market. If they can sell it for a profit then PEN will be arround for a long time to come regardless of where they started out and what they did in the past. If they found uranium on their leases instead of gold and had the kudos' to mine it in the face of a lot of political opposition in the past, good on them.

Get over it, move on, cut the bulldust. If you like uranium stocks buy PEN, trade PEN and post your comments on the PEN thread. If you don't like uranium stocks, don't waste your time posting on the PEN thread.

Personally If there is a trade opportunity with PEN and I see it, I will take it. It owes me nothing, I owe it nothing and all the other crap is just background noise. Also all the crap about protecting newbies is just that...crap. There is a well worn expression on the ASF site, it is DYOR. Do Your Own Research.
 
nulla nulla said:
Fact 1: Fukishima is not the only Nuclear Power Station in the world;
Fact 2: There are hundreds more Nuclear Power stations in the planning stages for China, India and the rest of the world;
Fact 3: The demand for Yellow Cake is not going to evaporate any time soon.

If PEN can produce yellowcake, they will have a market. If they can sell it for a profit then PEN will be arround for a long time to come regardless of where they started out and what they did in the past. If they found uranium on their leases instead of gold and had the kudos' to mine it in the face of a lot of political opposition in the past, good on them.

Get over it, move on, cut the bulldust. If you like uranium stocks buy PEN, trade PEN and post your comments on the PEN thread. If you don't like uranium stocks, don't waste your time posting on the PEN thread.

Personally If there is a trade opportunity with PEN and I see it, I will take it. It owes me nothing, I owe it nothing and all the other crap is just background noise. Also all the crap about protecting newbies is just that...crap. There is a well worn expression on the ASF site, it is DYOR. Do Your Own Research.
Click to expand...

Thumbs up from me Nulla Nulla .... succinctly put ..... nothing more to add ... well done :cool:
 
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima have all put uranium sentiment on hold. With the first two, for an extended period of time. Fukushima may or may not reverberate negatively for such a period. But as a PEN holder the question for me is when to buy in the risk/reward equation. Parking money in uranium now may not be best use at this point in time.
 
Lots of platitudes tonight. Still no debate on the current value of PEN.

I take it we all agree that the 5.5 - 10.7 cent range is fair value then, and that we should only expect the upper end of that range if both the AUD/USD rate falls to 0.80 and the spot/term price rises to $70 USD/lb.

Grant
 
gnealson said:
Lots of platitudes tonight. Still no debate on the current value of PEN.

I take it we all agree that the 5.5 - 10.7 cent range is fair value then, and that we should only expect the upper end of that range if both the AUD/USD rate falls to 0.80 and the spot/term price rises to $70 USD/lb.

Grant
Click to expand...

Definition of Platitude: A platitude is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement, often presented as if it were significant and original.

I take umbrage at your post.

I find it offensive. It is in itself a platitude and offers nothing constructive to the determination of dealing with PEN as a short term or long term investor/trader.

I note that you only joined the ASF in April 2011 and have contributed little, other than deride the position/perspective of other longer term members of the ASF. IMO you would do well to observe and learn until you have have something constructive to contribute.
 

Similar threads

bigdog
  • Locked
MEE - Metex Resources
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
53K
Joe Blow
Joe Blow
prawn_86
BCC - Buccaneer Energy
16 17 18
Replies
341
Views
71K
zzaaxxss3401
Z
YOUNG_TRADER
CNF - Continental Goldfields
2 3
Replies
55
Views
17K
Boyou
Boyou
motion
Uranium in for correction, not a rout
Replies
0
Views
8K
motion
motion
Top