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
As I do I have again listened to the arcusa presentation. I often re-read reports as more often than not I can miss information.

Glad I did and relevant to your question skc.

Gus stated the $100,000,000 facility is predominently set aside for an "aquisition". That term just keeps popping up and I watch this aspect closely as it is clear PEN is looking for an aquisition.

What wasn't elborated on is what was meant by "predominently". In the past it has been stated that PEN has the required funding to go all the way to production however they are pursuing other funding means.

We can only speculate on what will happen here, however I personally like it that again they have publicly stated the intention to pursue an aquisition.

Aside from this it should be noted that ARMZ still does not have a license to export uranium. The Wyoming assets are useless to them without this. Also these assets are minimal compared to the main assets of Uranium One in Kazakhstan. It could be that ARMZ will sell the Wyoming asset of which is a "near producer", just what PEN would be interested in and capable of purchasing.

Uranium One paid "$35 million in cash for Malco, which owns the licensed and permitted Irigaray in-situ recovery (ISR) central processing plant, the Christensen Ranch satellite ISR facility and associated uranium resources located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming."
source: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Uranium_One_acquires_Wyoming_assets-1108094.html

Uranium One paid $35m and PEN has a $100m funding facility available and set aside for an aquisition. All assets in Wyoming USA, Powder River Basin.

Will ARMZ be successful in obtaining the export license, will they settle for selling uranium in the USA or will they sell the asset?

I watch this very closely each day with great interest, even more so since watching the arcusa presentation again today.
 

Thanks. Doesn't sound like they need too much additional cash until production which is a good thing for holders.
 
hangseng said:
PEN are way ahead of peers that were once the "darlings" of the market. Look at BLR now for instance, once 35c
Click to expand...

BLR was 35c around 2001. PEN was 35c around Feb 1997. If you believe that prior highs have any bearing on the quality of a company today, then it must similarly reflect badly on PEN, right?

I realise how shocking this must be, so I hope you're sitting down when you read this. Are you going to 'sell in an instant' now that you've discovered PEN suffers the same grave flaw that BLR does?

hangseng said:
now 3.6c (and falling)
Click to expand...

Actually, it rose 15% since you wrote that without any announcement. Compare with PEN, which only rose 2.5% despite an 'important' announcement.

hangseng said:
and not even close to PEN's position and looking like 2c could occur sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Without providing any reasoning this might be perceived by some as down-ramping. Despite the pretext, I think it's pretty clearly more than you needed to say in the PEN forum.


Joe Blow yesterday requested for us all to stop quoting unverifiable conversations unless we had it in writing. So can you please post the email in which Gus wrote this, with the email message header, and also Gus' approval for it to be published on the internet.

Grant
 

Excellent post Hangseng. Since I'm so harsh on you when I feel you stray I think it's important I also commend you when you produce high quality, objective, analysis and research like this.

Grant
 

BLR was 34.5c according to my IC chart on the 23/5/2007, on Etradepro it shows 35c on the same date. Maybe you have something different, by all means please display it but that is what it was. Once a market darling but clearly out of favour now.

PEN became PEN in 2004, you are quoting the delisted company KNL, of which was not PEN. PEN took over the assets of KNL and KNL was renamed PEN.

Joe has already discussed this with me and I won't be posting again nor elaborating any further on that. Except to state what I said to Joe, it is also a statement he has made publicly.

The rest can go to the keeper, I am not getting embroiled in your petty games here. This is an excellent forum and I will do all I can to keep it that way.

Sell PEN? I think NOT!
 
Re: PEN DEEP WELL LICENCE APPROVED

gnealson said:
Fair enough, but bias got you into the painful situation and will cost you money long term IMO. Imagine if you'd been questioning the bulls and realised that they were overly optimistic. You'd be in a completely different situation right now.
Click to expand...

I can understand how you may come to those conclusions Grant, but in defense of my own trading, I can honestly and equivocally state that you are way off the mark

gnealson said:
confirms my suspicions that there's a large overhang of stock to clear
Click to expand...

I agree that there will be a some effort required for the SP to break some of the current resistance levels. I'll be happy to see a base form around the 8 cent mark for the time being.
 
Just another reminder that this thread is to discuss PEN, not users posting style, ASF rules, what constitues (up or down) ramping etc.

Posts must contain analysis about PEN (and not go off topic during another part of that post), either fundamental or technical.

Please keep the discussion to the stock at hand.
 

Perhaps after your wise advice Prawn, I may now continue with some charting analysis
relevant to PEN.
After a breakout from the descending triangle, PEN has now retraced to lie just below
where it broke on reasonably high volume of 34m. Unfortunately it must be stated this
number is units of stock rather than value, none the less it brought the price to below
.8 where it closed on 13.4.11.
.6 seemed a possibility, but it rallied and over the next two trading days, PEN has
inched it's way back to 0.85 on indifferent volume, thus making one postulate that the
scene is set for a retracement from the previous resistance at 0.85. Holders may be
anticipating a run up from here, however this would be uncommon for a descending
chart pattern such as a triangle. Rather a testing of the resistance is the norm, it being
uncommon for this to be followed by bullish run. This analysis is justified by the
number of shares traded on the 15.4.11, and by the close at .82 , with an open of .85
taking the high at .87, this stock is for lower. My opinion only.

gg
 

Attachments

  • pen.jpg
    76.6 KB · Views: 7
CURRENT fundamentals will always continue to drive a stocks SP and so it will be with PEN. You can throw up charts and share prices from 10 yrs ago which are completely irrelevant as PEN was an entirely different company back then. The only purpose in doing this is either being totally ill informed about the company history or blatant down ramping and malicious scaremongering.



From http://www.smallcapinvestor.com/article/why-i-continue-to-be-a-uranium-bull/23146



Immediately following Japan’s natural catastrophe and subsequent nuclear disaster, I wrote an article titled, “Is Now the Time to Buy Uranium Miners?”

In this article I suggested that history displays time and time again that buying shares amidst the onslaught of panic selling ultimately pays handsome rewards.

For instance, the price of uranium quickly moved from $63 per pound to a low of $49.75 shortly after the catastrophe occurred in Japan. Since the low was established two trading days after the Japanese disaster the spot price has bounced back 18.6 percent, to $59 per pound.



Let’s be realistic about the fundamentals of the uranium market.

Remember, there are already 440 nuclear reactors in operation across the globe. There are an additional 108 nuclear reactors currently under construction in the world’s two largest emerging markets of China and India. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) estimates there will be an additional 331 nuclear reactors (including the 108 in China and India) in operation within the next 15 years.
At the end of the day, the world's energy needs outweigh the risk of an isolated incident in Japan. You don't make a bad situation (declining fossil fuel resources and increasing pollution) worse by making hasty decisions to eliminate a key and clean energy source for the future.
The available supply of uranium remains unchanged since the Fukushima disaster, and according to the World Nuclear Association demand remains strong.
If we look out over the next 8 to 10 years, which is the amount of time it takes a nuclear power plant to become fully operational, the market will remain 400 million pounds short of needed demand on an annual basis – forget about any increase in demand from new nuclear power plants.

The fundamentals of the current uranium market are clear – there is a significant gap between current supply and demand. Rising future demand will only amplify the shortfall.

The top 5 uranium producers, which make up almost 90% of the uranium supply market, only produced 110 million pounds of uranium in 2010. In other words, uranium producers need to produce nearly four times their current amount just to meet estimated new demand. The new supply will have to come from somewhere, or the price of the existing supply will need to increase dramatically to clear the market. In either event, shares of the uranium mining stocks would likely increase significantly from their current levels.

The bottom line is that even in the wake of the Japanese catastrophe uranium’s supply crunch lives on.

Some nations have decided to take a 3 month reprieve to review the safety standards set forth in the new construction of nuclear facilities. This is a rational way to proceed as it will allay some fears of the uninformed masses, but in my opinion it is more of a political maneuver than anything.

As for uranium stocks, current share prices are completely divorced from underlying fundamentals. Once the noise in the market created by the Japanese catastrophe is gone, stocks will once again reflect earnings - and while sales to one reactor in Japan may slump, the world's other 439 reactors will be as hungry as ever for uranium fuel.

The tragedy in Japan, and subsequent fear in the market, has presented us with the opportunity to invest in several well-managed and fundamentally sound uranium companies. For well-informed investors with the patience to tolerate volatility for a couple of months, I think this could potentially be the single best opportunity to buy and hold uranium stocks.

I will continue to track the nuclear/uranium story closely and report back to you here in Small Cap Investor Daily. Over the next two weeks I will go over the fundamentals of several of my favorite uranium stocks and why they should perform well over the long-term. Feel free to send in questions, or companies, that you would like me to address. My address is editorial@smallcapinvestor.com.

As you know, I am long-term bullish on uranium fundamentals, and hope that you can join me for what should be a prosperous ride
 
And heres another piece of news to fundamently drive much safer ISR Uranium type mining methods over open cut conventional and expensive mining operations. Not to mention the flow on effects this flooding at ranger will have on long term Uranium prices.





http://www.smh.com.au/environment/radioactive-threat-looms-in-kakadu-20110415-1dhvw.html


THE operator of the Ranger uranium mine expects to take drastic action to prevent radioactive water spilling into an Aboriginal community and Kakadu's World Heritage-listed wetlands.

More than 10 billion litres of highly contaminated water is trapped on the mine site 230 kilometres south-east of Darwin after near-record rainfalls.

Energy Resources of Australia, which is controlled by Rio Tinto, will be forced to pump water from the almost over-flowing dam into its operating open-cut mine known as Pit 3 if the Kakadu area receives about 100 millimetres more rain. With three weeks of the Top End's wet season remaining, more rain is likely.

Advertisement: Story continues below This would delay for months, possibly years, the resumption of high-grade ore extraction in the pit that ERA relies on to supply 10 per cent of the world's uranium.

The company conceded this week it would be unable to resume production in the pit until the end of July at the earliest and that its ''ultimate contingency'' to protect the environment was to transfer water from the tailings dam.

But Pit 3, the only place available to put the water, already contains 3.6 billion litres of water that is sitting above high-grade ore deposits.

If forced to pump water containing heavy metals and radioactive material from the tailings dam into the pit, ERA would have to treat all of the water there as highly contaminated.

But sources at the mine said the treatment plants did not have the capacity to solve existing water management problems, despite recent upgrading of equipment.

For 30 years about 100,000 litres of contaminated water a day has been leaking from the tailings dam into fissures beneath Kakadu but an 18-month review completed last year failed to establish where the water had gone or whether it would damage the environment in the future.

Geoff Kyle, an industrial chemist and science officer working for the Mirarr Aboriginal traditional owners of Kakadu, said pumping water from the tailings dam was a last resort for ERA, which the company is trying to avoid by asking the mine's regulators to relax environmental standards.

Mr Kyle said the company had proposed ''deliberately allowing seepage into a local aquifer and has submitted detailed plans for remediating the damage it believes will be caused''.

''The height limit of the water in the tailings dam is 53 metres - it was 52.9 metres last Friday and there has been more rain since then so we believe the company will have to start pumping if we receive about 100 millimetres more rain.''

The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast showers and storms in the area over the next couple of days and unpredictable wet season weather for several weeks. Since ERA announced an initial three-month suspension of production at Ranger in January, the company's shares have fallen 45 per cent to $6.58 a share, a loss in value of $1 billion.

The crisis has thrown into doubt ERA's plans to expand its operation to include an underground mine and the use of a controversial acid heap leach processing technique to process low-grade ore.

The Ranger mine has had more than 150 leaks, spills and mishaps since it opened despite opposition from Kakadu's traditional owners in 1981.

Yvonne Margarula, a Mirarr senior traditional leader, said last week that her people were ''deeply saddened'' that uranium from their land at Ranger had been exported to Japanese nuclear power companies, including the one operating the stricken Fukushima plant.

This week the ERA chairman, David Klingner, publicly ruled out his company agreeing to give up the Jabiluka mineral lease, which contains known high-grade reserves of uranium worth more than $18 billion.
 

While believing as you do, in uranium as a future fuel, I do not agree with ignoring sentiment and market fundamentals.

Should I find a stock selling Japanese Candles likely to make a better profit than PEN I would buy it.

PEN is challenged ATM, and as I posted
above may drift lower.

Love of a stock can drive people to extraordinary lengths,
the chart never lies.

If it continues down tomorrow, I'd be out and waiting for a
better day.

Stocks go down when there are more sellers than buyers.

They go up when there are more buyers than sellers.

ATM with PEN , it is in flux, from a charting view.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
While believing as you do, in uranium as a future fuel, I do not agree with ignoring sentiment and market fundamentals.
Click to expand...

Agreed Garpal. Uranium definitely has a future but sentiment has also definitely changed.

The bull market in uranium is over (31/03/2011)

Excerpts:

Public and media sentiment is such that, rightly or wrongly, the future for nuclear power, and by extension for uranium miners, is nowhere near as rosy as it was just three months ago.
Click to expand...

the deciding factor for the future of uranium could be the outlook for copper prices.
Click to expand...


Supply could surge just as demand collapses
Click to expand...

There is the elephant in the room that is Rössing South in Namibia.
Click to expand...


These are the sorts of changes that bring great commodity bull markets to an end. And it's why I have changed my thinking on the sector. I have now decided I am not touching uranium juniors.
Click to expand...


The article is far from perfect, but it's a demonstration of the kind of onslaught the Uranium sector and in particular the Uranium juniors are taking right now.

Grant
 
hangseng said:
PEN became PEN in 2004, you are quoting the delisted company KNL, of which was not PEN. PEN took over the assets of KNL and KNL was renamed PEN.
Click to expand...

Completely misses the point, which is that prior prices have no bearing on future performance.

You made the same argument to detractors when they claimed PEN falling from 10c+ down to 1.5c was some sort of sign. As we know, PEN falling over 70% had little to do with its future performance.

Objectivity requires applying the same logic, reasoning, and standards to every stock. You obviously have strong views on BLR so I hope you post your TA in that forum along with the FA reasons you have that distinguish it from PEN when it had fallen to 1.5 cents, or even PEN now after falling nearly 50%.

Grant
 
mickqld said:
CURRENT fundamentals will always continue to drive a stocks SP and so it will be with PEN.
Click to expand...

But the current fundamentals are known and so presumeably priced in. Usually forums concern themselves with the future. To illustrate why I think the jury is still out, let's go back to the 3 Mile Island incident. At the time it looked like Uranium demand was increasing exponentially year on year and there wasn't an immediate drop in Nuclear plant builds after 3 Mile Island but, as you can see by the chart, demand slowed and then levelled off:



So when you describe the 'current' fundamentals less than 2 months after Fukushima, I don't find it compelling at all because I'm thinking about the next few years and whether or not history could repeat. It may be that Ross and Barber are quite profitable due to the timing, but think what affect it could potentially have for the other sites at Lance as well as Karoo. The Hartley's report assumes that all is ok with these, but in the next few years we may find that Hartley's will be forced to reduce their valuation of PEN dramatically because there's less certainty surrounding both Lance and Karoo than there was before Fukushima. And I'm actually giving Hartley's a lot of slack there. As I've stated before, I disagree with the generosity of the Hartley's report whether Fukushima happened or not.

Gus' speech at arcusa seemed to assure many of the forum commentators about the future of Uranium demand, but I didn't find it compelling because to my knowledge the chart he displayed of future demand and future prices was created before Fukushima. Housing demand in the US before the GFC was pretty rosy too with projections running off the top of the chart, but you'd have been unwise to go to a Real Estate convention in 2008, looked at a chart made before any problems were detected or listened to those who have vested interests uncritically, and then concluded that there was nothing wrong with housing.

As stated elsewhere, it takes time for big shifts in the Nuclear sector and there's already projects being built. If you look at the chart, you can see that the same thing happened back in the 80s. The number of reactors kept increasing after 3 Mile Island, but the rate of new reactors being built started softening almost immediately.

Those declaring all is ok right now are jumping the gun IMO, as are those who are declaring the end for the Uranium sector. Cooler heads ought to take a wait and see approach, because while history doesn't repeat, it often rhymes. I think we'll have much more clarity around the situation in the next 6-12 months.

Grant

PS: Chart is from here.
 
Tell me the alternative base load power generation resource that is going to deliver power to the billions of people who are demanding lights, tvs, computers etc. Coal/gas, highly polluting and going to become extraordinarily expensive when govts around the world are forced to put a carbon price on top of it as our fearless leader Julia is about to do, or are we all just going to shut our eyes and pretend that Kyoto and global warming is a myth and everything is now somehow fine with carbon polluting power generation because nuclear is the devil itself. Media driven hysteria is still prevalent in everyone's eyes after Fukushima and will be for most of the year. But it will soon be forgotten by the media just as the 10's of thousands who died in one of the worlds worst NATURAL disasters.
 

I agree that Nuclear is the best option right now. Since when did the public or politicians always choose the best option though? Why should they be irrational on everything else but suddenly find their heads on this issue?

Arguing for what's rational is missing the point when it comes to sentiment shifts if you ask me.

Grant
 

In terms of loss of life it seems coal already is by far Mick.

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

"There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...uels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html

and this....

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html



And yet we have a massive over reaction to a nuclear plant incident that wasn't responsible for all the earthquake/tsunami related deaths in Japan...

Put in a Google search "china coal mine explosion" and see how many people have been killed in China alone from Coal mine incidents. Do they stop buying coal and building coal plants and the bottom drop ouit of shares???? No, and we don't see media reporting coal related fataities, like has just occurred at Fukishima go figure.

We see headlines like this daily:

Power Is Restored To One Crippled Fukushima Nuclear Unit As Death Count Rises
Click to expand...
http://oneplusonedirect.com/power-i...ima-nuclear-unit-as-death-count-rises/852804/

It is good news about the power plant restoration but lets throw in a rise in fatalities (totally unrelated to the power plant) in the same sentence as it will be a far more spectacular headline. Tripe reportintg IMO.

Scaremongering abounds and continues, however reality will eventually hit home and nuclear energy will rebound.
 

Attachments

  • deathperwatts.jpg
    5 KB · Views: 101
hangseng said:
Scaremongering abounds and continues, however reality will eventually hit home and nuclear energy will rebound.
Click to expand...

Media before Fukushima was scaremongering about Uranium shortages. Now the media is scaremongering about Nuclear disasters.

The media is the same as ever, it just doesn't suit you anymore.

Grant

PS - if you want to see truly staggering death counts, look up alcohol and tobacco! Death count means very little when it comes to public policy.
 
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...