No, I don't think so phish. See the table below for summary of...

No, I don't think so phish. See the table below for summary of Lance production costs since start up (all info from quarterlies).



If you accept these calculations, the cumulative production cost per pound of uranium (items 1.2a to 1.2 e) is $189/lb as at 31 March 18. Total uranium production for the same period was 299,526 lbs, i.e. 22% of nameplate - woeful.

It's a simple exercise to apply a factor to the production data so that the cumulative production cost to date is $55/lb, i.e. the same as the oft quoted long-term contract sell price. Call this 'break-even' production rate. It turns out that the break-even production rate is 76% of nameplate (600,000 lb/a). Anything less, and Lance is losing cash. So my original thumb suck of 80% turns out to be quite accurate. As a shareholder, I would want more than break-even - way more in fact, considering the risk. To satisfy this requirement, actual production should be significantly higher than the 76% break-even. 85%? 90%. Your call phish, but clearly I'm not over-emphasising the importance of achieving nameplate. All of PEN's earlier financial models, which would have been used to sell the project to investors, would have relied on achieving/exceeding nameplate, so why is it less important now? Well, the obvious answer is "It isn't".

Another point worth noting is the negative $30M cashflow since start-up.