RE:RE:RE:PFS: What's it all mean and why's the SP heading downBlah Blah Blah Uranium. You are the biggest blowhard on these boards. Same old Same old all the time. You are such a f'cking a$$hole it's hard to believe they actually pay you to post.
Numerous ID's, but the same old sh!t, day after day after day.
Why is it, that Bill Gates has put billions of his own money into nuclear. Why?? Because it's the only way to get clean, affordable and constant electricity for the future.
Uraniuman308 wrote: First, everyone touted the benefits of an open pit, now we know FCU will probably be an UG mine - if ever developed. Second, FCU blow hards knock NXE for their debt financing. Anyone want to bet which way FCU goes in their next round of financing - which will be a reality sooner than later. My bet is on debt financing. Then Dev will have to change his messaging from low fruit is always picked first and no debt to “underground mining and debt financing are the way to go”. All credibility will/is gone...JMO
Bull4u2 wrote: You obviously don't have any idea about the PFS vs. PEA. The PFS is only based on the 780 zone and ONLY takes into consideration indicated resource. Fission has a whole lot more growth potential. IMO, the PFS is very positive.They are no worse off than any other uranium stocks in the sector.
Nexgen has as many issues as any company out there. With their high debt charges and no new exploration planned, they will need more money soon too. If you want to talk dilution, talk about NXE too. Bottom line, u explorers and producers need to have the spot price move up and over $50 before we see some big upside. Until then, we will continue to see and hear the bash brigade give us their opinions. Buy. Hold and Shut Up.
Sodales wrote:
Compare the PFS to the PEA issued in 9/15 and you'll see why the share price is heading lower--the IRR is lower in the PFS; the estimated production is less in the PFS; the NPV in both pre- and post-tax are lower in the PFS; the payback time is longer in the PFS; and the CAPEX is higher in the PFS. (It's disappointing that Quakes isn't being candid about this in his twitter feed). So why keep shares in Fission? Because likely expansion in the R1515W, R855W and R1620E zones aren't yet included in the PFS, and neither are the inferred resources in the R00E and R780E zones. So the risk/reward decision in an investor's mind is whether the expansion of what we know is a mineable asset is more than worth the added expense and dilution by subsequent financing will be. Me? I'm keeping my shares but see the possibility/probability that share price may go down another 10% or so. Could be wrong about this "analysis" but couldn't we all be wrong? Thankfully I've always treated my Fission investment as a totally disposable investment . . .