RE:RE:Upside GaloreI would suggest that your due diligence is inaccurate. Likely that you are looking at the wrong parameters. From all of your posts and others here you seem to think that because a mine is underground that makes it less viable than a surface mine. The viability of a mining operation...and especially Uranium depends on many factors. Depth is one. If Arrow was a 1km deep mine with the average of world Uranium assays then viability would be an issue. BUT the point you are missing...repeatedly missing because I have said all this before....is that this is the worlds largest deposit of high grade Uranium. It may even surpass Cigar and McArthur River. We are not at the reserves stage yet but the drilling results to date are at least as good and in many cases better than either Cigar or McArthur River. at this point in their mine lives....it is therefore a good bet that this mine will top 500 Million pounds of Uranium.
I also do not agree with many of the posters here and on NXE that FCU' deposit under Patterson Lake is that much of an issue. But it IS a much smaller deposit (at present) than NXE. That means the total amount of dollars that can be made here is lower than NXE.
Mining technology can easily handle the depth of Arrow and the Underwater aspects of Patterson Lake so neither are a difficult engineering problem. Only people that are not engineers think that. Many mines for many commodities around the world deal with issues far more complex than these mines present. It would be nice if PLS was not partially under a Lake and it would be nice if Arrow was all surface material. But that is not the point. The point is can mines be built to get at the resource economically and dispose of the tailings economically?
The BIG advantage of Arrow is the ingenious methods of disposing of tailings...back into the mine from whence they came. That drastically reduces the cost of maintaing the tailings ponds...there aren't any....which also greatly assists the licensing process.
So when you do your due diligence the factors you SHOULD be looking at are:
1. Total amount of pounds
2. Life of the mine
3. Cost of extraction/lb.
4. Future price of Uranium once mine is operating.
5. Transport costs to the mill.
The depth of the mine or whether the mine is under a lake only affect #3 and marginally at that. So focussing on it is messing up your judgement.
I own both NXE and FCU and the relative proportions of each I own (in dollars) are based on the price of the stock and the 5 factors above. I adjust it periodically but I would never sell one or the other based on a misunderstanding of mining technology. 1Km is not deep for a mine and building mines with lakes on top is not much of a problem - especially a shallow one like Patterson Lake. If you think otherwise you need to consults with mining specialists who will tell you the same thing. Talking to those people is part of my due diligence and they tell me a very different story than what you post here. Inclined to believe guys who worked for 30 years building Uranium mines.
Suggest most strongly that you upgrade your advisors and improve your DD.
M