Entry price @ .0245 U.S. This may start to get interesting. My portfolio is almost entirely Uranium plays, but this company caught my attention awhile back.

https://copper.com.au/news/antimicrobial-copper/u-s-approves-copper-for-residual-use-against-coronavirus/

February 15, 2021 · Antimicrobial Copper, General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that certain copper alloys provide long-term effectiveness against the virus that causes COVID-19, the first product to get the approval.

Here is the EPA’s media release:

WASHINGTON (February 10, 2021) — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that certain copper alloys provide long-term effectiveness against viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result of EPA’s approval, products containing these copper alloys can now be sold and distributed with claims that they kill certain viruses that come into contact with them. This is the first product with residual claims against viruses to be registered for use nationwide. Testing to demonstrate this effectiveness was conducted on harder-to-kill viruses.

“Providing Americans with new tools and information to fight the virus that causes COVID-19 is one of EPA’s top priorities,” said Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Freedhoff. “Today’s action marks another step forward in EPA’s efforts to listen to the science and provide effective tools to help protect human health.”

In today’s action, EPA is granting an amended registration to the Copper Development Association for an emerging viral pathogen claim to be added to the label of Antimicrobial Copper Alloys- Group 1 (EPA Reg. No. 82012-1), which is made of at least 95.6 percent copper. Amended registrations allow previously registered products to make label changes (e.g., changes to product claims, precautions and/or use directions) and/or formulation changes. In this case, the amended registration is adding virus claims to the product registration.

New efficacy testing supported by the Copper Development Association and conducted according to EPA’s protocols demonstrated certain high-percentage copper alloy products can continuously kill viruses that come into contact with them. Based on testing against harder-to-kill viruses, EPA expects these products to eliminate 99.9 percent of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, within two hours.

Antimicrobial copper alloys can be manufactured into a wide range of surfaces, including doorknobs and handrails. These high-percentage copper alloy products will be added to the List N Appendix , the Agency’s list of residual antiviral products that can be used to supplement routine cleaning and disinfection to combat SARS-CoV-2. To find products for routine cleaning and disinfection, see EPA’s List N.

The use of antimicrobial copper alloy products supplements but does not replace standard infection control practices. Individuals should continue to follow Centers for Disease Control (CDC), state, and local public health guidelines, including critical precautions like mask wearing, social distancing, and ventilation. According to the CDC, COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person.

For more information on how copper alloy products can be used against viruses, see EPA’s website or the product’s label in the Pesticide Product and Label System .

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-15/copper-hits-highest-level-since-amid-concerns-over-supplies

Copper climbed to the highest level since 2012 as a risk-on mood across global markets helped to lift equities and put pressure on the dollar.

Prices have soared on optimism that the use of coronavirus vaccines will aid a rebound in global growth. Copper climbed 5.3% last week on the London Metal Exchange, in the biggest gain since July.

The metal used in pipes and wires edged higher Monday even as public holidays in China and the U.S. contributed to thin trading conditions. While new Covid-19 variants are threatening to temper the outlook, investors are banking on U.S. government spending and the coronavirus vaccine rollout to boost the economic recovery.

“There’s a risk-on mood across the whole market, whether it be oil, equities or metals,” Colin Hamilton, managing director for commodities research at BMO Capital Markets Ltd, said by phone from London. “It’s one of those markets where even bad news is good news.”


LME prices have rallied strongly during the closure of Chinese markets for the Lunar New Year holidays, and investors expect that the usual dip in factory output over the period may be less severe this year owing to restrictions on travel.

U.S. markets are shut for Presidents’ Day on Monday, while exchanges in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are also closed. Chinese markets will reopen on Thursday.

Copper climbed as much as 0.9% to $8,406 a ton on the London Metal Exchange, the highest level since 2012, before paring gains to close at $8,394 a ton. Tin paced gains in most metals, closing 3.1% higher after an unprecedented spike in spot contracts.

Production guidance from the top 25 copper producers indicates the market may be in a sizable deficit this year, “assuming our scenario of 5% demand growth is in the ballpark,” according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Grant Sporre and Andrew Cosgrove. Copper’s on course in February to post an 11th monthly gain.

Commodity Titans to Weigh In on Supercycle Talk as Prices Rally

Copper is “being driven by a cocktail of positive factors -- including rising inflation expectations caused by U.S. stimulus, a falling dollar, and historically low stocks,” said Gavin Wendt, a senior resource analyst at MineLife Pty. “The 2021 copper production outlook is likely to be negatively impacted as a result of Covid in a number of major South American producing nations.”

— With assistance by Swansy Afonso

The scene has changed, given the recent SEC crackdown. I have held onto some RSHN shares for years. Beyond that, I place my money in fully reporting companies, no pinkies. Not condemning the company or any trading approach of investors.

Pinkies are moving for no reason at this time. Word of caution to all, be careful with your money.

Amen Harry,Trump 2024! The Rino's, including Pence have been exposed. I hope his VP selection is somebody that can be trusted.

Experts? They are no more able to call a bottom than anybody on this board. It's nothing more than a guess. Even if the bottom were to be in, what impact would that have on a stock that is pot stock only because they have labeled themselves as such in vague press releases.

I've been a shareholder far too long to accept their inability to file. No excuse for it. I was initially invested when Bob Corr owned the mess, so good luck with the smack talks Longs.

Sounds like an early retirement plan to me.

http://www.xyzhemp.com/

Not a shred of evidence to support this. I am pro RSHN, please steer clear of misleading potential investors.

You may as well drink water from your sink Crypto.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8585182/Fiji-Water-accused-of-environmentally-misleading-claims.



Fiji Water accused of environmentally misleading claims
It is, according to the marketing spiel, “drawn from an artesian aquifer hundreds of feet below the edges of a primitive rainforest”, untouched by human hand.
Fiji Water accused of environmentally misleading claims
A bottle of Fiji water Photo: ALAMY
Andy Bloxham

By Andy Bloxham

7:30AM BST 20 Jun 2011

The firm also claims to be the “the first major beverage brand to give a carbon negative commitment”, meaning that buying its product is actually good for the planet.

But a documentary investigation has concluded that Fiji Water, which is stocked by some of London’s most exclusive restaurants and enjoyed by Barack Obama and Scarlett Johansson, is far less friendly to the planet than it claims.

Fiji Water is owned by the Californian entrepreneurs Lynda and Stewart Resnick, who urge consumers to drink their brand to combat climate change.

The firm takes fresh water from the Yaqara Valley on the island of Viti Levu and ships it thousands of miles to the UK and US.

London’s Michelin-starred restaurant Nobu, on Park Lane, serves it, and Harrods, Harvey Nichols and Selfridge’s sell it.
Related Articles

Harry Potter actor attacks English Heritage over battlefield plans 19 Jun 2011

The IPCC declares Greenpeace in our time 18 Jun 2011

U2's The Edge has eco-friendly Malibu homes plan blocked by environmental commission 17 Jun 2011

A countryside to serve the country 17 Jun 2011

Cycling dress sense for men 17 Jun 2011

New York airport geese face chop 17 Jun 2011

Celebrities on America’s West Coast, from Gisele Bundchen, the model, to Lady Gaga, the singer, and David Beckham, the footballer, are all photographed with it.

The brand is so successful that it has even appeared on the television shows Friends, The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives.

Its environmental credentials are key to its appeal.

In 2007, the firm promised to become “carbon negative” by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions and planting enough trees to give an overall benefit to the atmosphere.

However, an investigation for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme said the claims were misleading.

The firm plan was to plant four square miles of trees in Fiji by 2010 which would fulfil its claims for three years.

However, in March, Fiji Water’s environmental advisers, Conservation International, told Dispatches that only 1.4 square miles had actually been done – less than half the amount expected – with no indication of when the rest might be planted.

Peter Seligman, Conservation International’s Chief Executive, told the programme the carbon negative claim was based on “the concept of being carbon negative”.

He said: “Fiji Water is committed to offsetting the carbon that’s emitted in their transporting and in their manufacturing by reforesting and protecting other forests outside of that area.

“So that’s why we work with them because there is a real biodiversity and conservation benefit.”

Some analysts claim that producing and delivering a litre of bottled water emits hundreds of times as much greenhouse gas as a litre of tap water.

environment minister,

Phil Woolas, the former environment minister, has described bottled water as “morally unacceptable”.

The market is estimated to be worth over £2 billion in the UK alone.

This is not the first time that Fiji Water has been criticised.

In September 2009, the American investigative journalism magazine Mother Jones said its signature bottle was made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fuelled plant.

It recognised that Fiji Water provides drinking water to some villages near the plant and put money towards clean water projects across the islands.

However, half the country has at times relied on emergency water supplies, with rations as low as four gallons a week per family.

Typhoid and parasitic infections are not uncommon and some Fijians have even smashed fire hydrants to get fresh water.

Fiji Water enjoys zero tax and when the government tried to impose one, the magazine wrote, it threatened to shut down its factories and move them abroad, which would have cost the islands’ economy around £1.8m a week.

Fiji Water claims to be responsible for about 20 per cent of the country's exports and three per cent of its GDP of £2,380 per capita.

A spokesman for the firm said: "In 2007, FIJI Water launched an environmental program that included our commitment to become a carbon-negative brand, working to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than we release into it.

"We analysed and published our bottled water’s carbon footprint and developed a program of environmental initiatives to enhance conservation efforts locally, and to implement projects and practices to reduce emissions across our product’s life cycle.

"As of 2010, FIJI delivered on its carbon-negative goal by initiating an extensive reforestation work in partnership with Conservation International."

Dispatches: Conservations Dirty Secrets is on tonight at 8pm on Channel 4.

Earth News

News »
UK News »
Food and Drink News »
Andy Bloxham »

In Earth News
African bees attack lions at a waterhole, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in South Africa
Lions attacked by swarm of bees
Two photos taken from a new series of photos shot with world-renowned 'Lion Whisperer' Kevin Richardson. Kevin teamed up with wildlife photographer Adrian Steirn to shoot the perfect billboard shot - depicting the plight of Africa's lions and their future.
Cats pose for the lion whisperer
A one-month-old baby hippo and its mother Maruska are seen in their enclosure at the zoo in Prague
Animal photos of the week

Staring into a burning ring of fire
Underwater Photographer of the Year
Underwater Photographer of the Year

Animals kissing for Valentine's Day

Shape shifting birds
Paid content

Recommended by

Top news galleries

Latest Video»
Rat climbs over man
Large rat climbs on sleeping commuter
Teenager 'groped' and pepper-sprayed at Wisconsin Donald Trump rally
Teen pepper-sprayed at Trump rally
Disabled great-grandfather denied stairlift and forced to crawl
Old and frail wombat is rescued
Elderly wombat rescued after being attacked
Passengers from hijacked flight arrive in Cairo
EgyptAir crew finally arrive in Cairo

More from the web

More from the web

More from the web
Paid content
Recommended by

RSHN isn't being shorted? I am not a crook.

Fair enough, I am not a crook.

He posts charts and receives views, nothing more. The guy has a big following, but he has no impact.

Riding free shares. I am not a crook.

Who cares. Clay is insignificant.

I'm riding the free share wave at this point billy. Will message you when this lands in copperville.

My wallet will by fed by the future billy, not the past.

Any companies in this sector will huge including RSHN



https://www.brewbound.com/news/cannabis-infused-beverages-emerge-potential-beer-industry-disruptor


Cannabis-Infused Beverages Emerge as Potential Beer Industry Disruptor

Chris Furnari Jun. 26, 2018 at 7:38 PM

Tweet
Share
Share
Reddit
+1
Email

U.S. consumers looking to catch a buzz without the booze will soon be able to purchase an assortment of beer-centric products thanks to a pair of ventures aiming to disrupt the current alcohol market with cannabis-infused beverages.

Petaluma, California-headquartered Lagunitas Brewing Company, which has a well-documented history with marijuana and is now wholly owned by Amsterdam-based Heineken International B.V., today announced the launch of two psychoactive sparkling water products.

Called Hi-Fi Hops, the two “IPA-inspired” non-alcoholic beverages are made in partnership with CannaCraft — which produces the AbsoluteXtracts line of vape cartridges — and contain zero alcohol, zero calories, and zero carbohydrates.

Set to debut at California-licensed dispensaries on July 30, the hoppy sparkling water beverages come in two doses: one containing 5 mg of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and 5 mg of CBD (Cannabidiol), and another containing 10 mg of THC.

According to representatives from both companies, who declined to reveal the specific financial terms of their arrangement, Lagunitas will produce the hop-infused, carbonated water and ship the liquid to CannaCraft’s facility in nearby Santa Rosa, California.

CannaCraft will then infuse its emulsified THC and CBD oils into the hoppy water, and package upwards of 25,000 12 oz. cans (about 75 barrels) for distribution throughout California.

Speaking to Brewbound, Lagunitas spokeswoman Karen Hamilton said the products – which prominently display the Lagunitas logo and are branded with the company’s signature splotch moniker — would retail for $8 and have a shelf life of eight months.

“If you are going to do an extension of your brand, it makes sense to create continuity, otherwise there is no connection,” Hamilton said, noting that the two companies hope to build off of Lagunitas’ image as a high-end producer of hoppy beers, as well as its penchant for marijuana as the emerging market for THC-infused beverages, grows.

“There is a pretty big frontier ahead,” she added. “It is an exciting one, and the future is unknown, but we know that Cannabis and CBD will be a big part of it.”

For its part, Heineken approved of Lagunitas’ push into the Cannabis sector, according to spokesman Bjorn Trowery.

“The great thing about Lagunitas is that they are always innovating and pushing the boundaries,” he said. “That’s one of the reasons why we teamed up with them, and something that’s really inspiring us. So, it is important that we let Lagunitas do their thing. Hi-Fi Hops is the latest result of their off-the-beaten-path experimentation.”

Despite doing much of the partnership’s heavy lifting – including supplying the active ingredients and distributing the products throughout the state via its sister company, Kind House Distribution – CannaCraft’s AbsoluteXtracts logo is displayed in much smaller lettering on the cans.

According to Kial Long, vice president of marketing for CannaCraft, which controls about 5 percent of the cannabis market in California, the psychoactive effects of the Hi-Fi Hops offerings will set in as quickly as about 15 minutes and last for as long as three hours.

Meanwhile, Cannabiniers, another Cannabis company that has operations in California and Nevada, last week announced the launch of Two Roots Brewing, which it claims produces “the world’s first line of CannaCrafted non-alcoholic THC and CBD infused craft beer.”

Speaking to Brewbound, Kevin Love, the company’s director of product development, said Two Roots brews its five styles of beer using traditional methods and then strips alcohol from the product using European manufactured “de-alcoholizing” equipment.

Like the Lagunitas offerings, Two Roots’ near beer is then shipped to a Cannabiniers facility and infused with approximately 2.5 mg of emulsified THC.

But the difference between the Two Roots products and the Lagunitas offerings, Love claims, is the infusing method.

While the dosage of the Two Roots products is lower than Hi-Fi Hops, Love said the company’s use of “nano-particulate, water-soluble” THC, as opposed to oil-based THC, allows for greater absorption within a period of five to seven minutes.

“The bioavailability is as high as 50 percent,” he said, noting that the human body takes longer to absorb other oil-based products.

“That’s why we are micro-serving,” he said. “When you were younger, and you had your first beer, you understood what it did. After you try the product, you can understand how many it takes to get to where you want to be.”

The Two Roots products, which are packaged in 10.5 oz. “sleek” cans and come in five flavors — Lager, Stout, New West IPA, Blonde Ale, and Wheat – are set to launch in Nevada in mid-July and will retail for $5.

A California launch is scheduled for the coming months, and the company is also in the process of finalizing contract production partnerships in 12 states, including Colorado, Washington, Illinois and New York, Love added.

Cannabiniers, which raised $19 million as part of a Series A fundraising round, and recently embarked on a $25 million Series B round to fund further expansion, currently employees around 200 people and has 150,000 sq. ft. of cannabis operations, Love added.

The company is bullish on the continued growth of the legal recreational and medical cannabis market in the U.S., which in 2017 totaled about $6 billion, according to Love.

“The entire market of infused beverages is only about 3 percent of total sales,” he said. “But the reality is that the future of cannabis consumption will be in a social environment. And it needs to be consumable, not smokable.”

Love said he believes the growth of “social” use occasions for cannabis – at bars, restaurants or other venues – could eventually mean cannabis-infused beverages make up as much as 30 percent of the total marijuana market.

“That is where the market is heading,” he said. “We are taking the road less traveled and we know it is not going to be an easy one. But we want to claim our stake, and when you are pioneering a market, you stand to have the most value.”

The introduction of cannabis-infused concoctions from Lagunitas and Two Roots Brewing come at a time when traditional beer sales are going flat. According to the Beer Institute, a trade association for the brewing industry, which cited data from Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) during a recent report, domestic tax paid shipments of U.S. beer were down 3.5 percent through May.

Meanwhile, off-premise retail sales of beer, including products imported into the U.S., were down 0.1 percent through May 20, according to market research firm IRI Worldwide.

In their quest to slake consumer thirst for something other than beer, both CannaCraft and Cannabiniers will be up against a growing number of startups, including Blue Moon creator Keith Villa, who plans to launch his own line of cannabis-infused non-alcoholic craft beers under the Ceria Beverages label, and at least two other beer behemoths: Molson Coors and Constellation Brands.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that Molson Coors was in talks with “several” Canadian marijuana companies as it attempts to curb declining beer sales via the introduction of its own line of cannabis-infused beverages.

And last October, Constellation Brands spent $191 million to acquire a 9.9 percent stake in Canada’s Canopy Growth Corporation, an investment that was, in part, aimed at developing cannabis-infused beverages that do not contain alcohol, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

The recent uptick in Cannabis-related beverage headlines also comes at a time when President Donald Trump has indicated he would support congressional efforts to end the federal ban on marijuana, and a move by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has approved the prescription of a CBD-based drug to treat epilep

Are Aquafina, Dasani, and Nestle Waters aware of this? Your post may shake their boardrooms up Billy. Please provide sound information that we are all able to benefit from.

Please provide DD. This statement is baseless.

BOOM!

https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=78008367&symbol=UUUU


Energy Fuels Announces Q2-2018 Results, Including $55 Million of Working Capital
Print
Alert
Energy Fuels Inc. (AMEX:UUUU)
Intraday Stock Chart

Today : Friday 3 August 2018
Click Here for more Energy Fuels Inc. Charts.

DENVER, Aug. 3, 2018 /CNW/ - Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE American: UUUU; TSX: EFR) ("Energy Fuels" or the "Company"), today reported its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2018. The Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q has been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and may be viewed on the Electronic Document Gathering and Retrieval System ("EDGAR") at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml, on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval ("SEDAR") at www.sedar.com, and on the Company's website at www.energyfuels.com. Unless noted otherwise, all dollar amounts are in U.S. dollars.

Financial Highlights:

At June 30, 2018, the Company had $55.25 million of working capital, including cash and cash equivalents of $43.2 million and approximately 225,000 pounds of uranium concentrate inventory.
$26.9 million of total revenue was realized by the Company during the quarter, due primarily to the advancement of future deliveries under long-term contracts into the quarter.
Primarily as a result of these high revenues, the Company reported net income of $7.1 million for the quarter.
500,000 pounds of U3O8 deliveries were completed by the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2018 at an average realized price of $53.55 per pound. On April 1, 2018, the Company delivered 400,000 lbs. of U3O8 into long-term sales contracts at the price of $61.30 per pound, resulting in the receipt of over $24.5 million on May 1, 2018. In addition, on June 15, 2018 the Company delivered 100,000 lbs. of U3O8 into a spot contract at $22.57 per pound.
Uranium production for our own account totaled 128,000 pounds of U3O8 during the quarter, plus another 91,000 pounds of U3O8 for the accounts of others.
The Company began fulfilling toll processing alternate feed contracts which are expected to result in approximately $7.1 million of revenue for 2018, including $3.8 million of cash and $3.3 million of uranium for the Company's account, of which $196,000 has been earned or recovered to date.

Mark S. Chalmers, Energy Fuels' President and CEO stated:

"The past quarter was extremely productive for Energy Fuels. We completed a large quantity of uranium deliveries, and as a result we are reporting a profit for the quarter. And, due to a number of factors discussed below, we have significantly improved our working capital position to over $55 million.

"I am particularly excited about the progress of our Section 232 application and current vanadium opportunities. On July 18, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce ("DOC") initiated its investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in response to the Petition we and Ur-Energy filed in January 2018. The Petition seeks a remedy which would set a quota to limit imports of uranium into the U.S., effectively reserving 25% of the U.S. nuclear market for U.S. uranium production. The remedy, if granted, would be expected to bolster national defense, further global non-proliferation objectives, improve supply diversification for U.S. utilities and their customers, and strengthen the U.S. uranium mining industry.

"As the only company currently capable of producing vanadium in North America, we are also very excited about our current vanadium opportunities. As previously reported, with spot prices nearing $20 per pound of V2O5, we have decided to resume vanadium production in 2018 by recovering solubilized vanadium from the White Mesa Mill's tailings and evaporation ponds. We expect to initially recover approximately 500,000 lbs. of V2O5 in late-2018 or early-2019, and given favorable costs, recoveries, and then-prevailing market conditions, we expect to continue vanadium recovery in 2019, recovering up to approximately 4 million lbs. of V2O5 over the life of the project. For longer term alternatives, we are evaluating other vanadium production opportunities, including the processing of previously mined uranium/vanadium stockpiles in the vicinity of the Mill, processing other vanadium-bearing streams, and, with improved uranium prices, the re-initiation of conventional uranium/vanadium mine production from certain of our mines that contain large, high-grade vanadium resources.

"These opportunities are exciting because they provide us with unsurpassed optionality to increase uranium production as prices rise, as well as allow us to take advantage of the recent significant increases in vanadium prices.

"Finally, we were able to significantly strengthen our balance sheet by joining the broad-market Russell 3000 Index® during the Quarter. During the Russell rebalance period, we were able to raise significant cash, while our stock outperformed our peers. Inclusion in the Russell is expected to increase the Company's liquidity, visibility and exposure to key institutional investors. In addition, Energy Fuels has been able to maintain a very strong working capital position, and we intend to use some of these proceeds to repay all of our existing long-term Wyoming debt the third quarter of this year."

Key Developments:

On May 8, 2018, the Company announced that it intends to resume vanadium recovery operations at the Company's White Mesa Mill in 2018. The Company expects to recover significant quantities of currently dissolved vanadium from the tailings and evaporation ponds at the White Mesa Mill.

On June 25, 2018, the Company announced that it had been added as a member of the broad-market Russell 3000® Index, as part of the 2018 Russell indexes reconstitution. Annual reconstitution of the Russell indexes captures the 3,000 largest U.S. stocks as of May 11, ranking them by total market capitalization. Membership in the Russell 3000® Index, which remains in place for one year, means automatic inclusion in the large-cap Russell 1000® Index or small-cap Russell 2000® Index, as well as the appropriate growth and value style indexes.

On July 18, 2018, the Company announced that the Department of Commerce ("DOC") initiated an investigation into the effects of uranium imports on U.S. national security. The Company and Ur-Energy requested the investigation in their Petition for Relief under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Company and Ur-Energy have proposed remedies that would reserve 25% of the U.S. nuclear market for U.S. uranium producers.

Selected Summary Financial Information:







$000, except per share data


Three months ended
June 30, 2018


Three months ended
June 30, 2017

Results of Operations:





Total revenues


$


26,973


$


17,883



Net income (loss) attributable to the company


7,149


(4,470)



Basic earnings (loss) per share


0.09


(0.06)



Diluted earnings (loss) per share


0.08


(0.06)







$000's


As at
June 30, 2018


As at
December 31, 2017

Financial Position:





Working capital


$


55,249


$


33,296



Property, plant and equipment


31,416


33,076



Mineral properties


83,539


83,539



Total assets


202,776


185,338



Total long-term liabilities


44,477


45,701



Operations and Sales Outlook:

The Company plans to extract and/or recover uranium from the following sources in 2018 (each of which is more fully described below):

Nichols Ranch Project;
Alternate Feed Materials (uranium-bearing materials other than conventional ores); and
The recovery of dissolved uranium from the Mill's tailings management system that was not fully recovered during the Mill's prior thirty-plus years of operations ("Pond Return").

Our planned operations are expected to produce finished uranium in excess of our existing requirements under our final remaining sales contract.

In addition, the Company has a long history of conventional vanadium recovery at the Mill when vanadium prices support those activities. The Company is currently expecting to resume vanadium recovery from pond solutions at the Mill later in 2018. The Company is also evaluating opportunities for copper recovery from our Canyon Project.

Extraction and Recovery Activities - Overview

The Company expects to produce a total of 460,000 to 520,000 pounds of U3O8 in the year ending December 31, 2018, of which 171,000 pounds of U3O8 were produced in the first six months of 2018.

Extraction and Recovery - ISR Uranium Segment

We expect production at Nichols Ranch to total 140,000 to 160,000 pounds in the year ending December 31, 2018, of which we recovered 82,000 pounds during the first six months of 2018.

At June 30, 2018, the Nichols Ranch wellfields had nine header houses extracting uranium. Until such time as improvement in uranium market conditions is observed or suitable sales contracts can be entered into, the Company intends to defer further development of wellfields at its Nichols Ranch Project and to keep Alta Mesa on standby.

Extraction and Recovery – Milling Operations

We expect to recover 320,000 to 360,000 pounds of uranium at the Mill during the year ending December 31, 2018 for our own account, of which we have recovered 89,000 lbs. to date in 2018. Of this material, approximately 145,000 pounds are expected to be from alternate feed materials and the remainder from Pond Return. In addition to the 145,000 pounds expected to be recovered from alternate feed materials, valued at $3.3 million, the Company expects to receive an additional $3.8 million in cash from processing fees, for a total expected value from alternate feed materials of $7.1 million during 2018, of which $196,000 has been earned or recovered to date in 2018. The Company is continuing to pursue other alternate feed material opportunities, some of which may result in additional value to the Company in 2018.

The Company currently expects that planned processing activities will keep the Mill in operation through the end of 2018, and will generate positive cash flow as a result. The Company is also actively pursuing opportunities to process new and additional alternate feed sources, low-grade ore from third parties in connection with various uranium clean-up requirements, and further recovery of uranium from Pond Return. The Company also plans to recover vanadium from existing pond solutions in a manner similar to the way the Company has recovered uranium from those same solutions, and perhaps recover vanadium from other sources.

Vanadium Recovery

Vanadium is a metallic element that is used primarily as an additive to strengthen and harden steel and other high-strength alloys. In addition, the commercialization of grid energy storage systems, including vanadium redox flow batteries, is catalyzing growth in vanadium markets.

In addition to its planned vanadium recovery from pond solutions at the Mill later in 2018 and in 2019, the Company is also reviewing the economics of processing certain previously mined uranium/vanadium ore stockpiles in the vicinity of the Mill and re-initiation of conventional mining at certain of its uranium/vanadium mines, as well as the recovery of vanadium alone, or in combination with uranium, from other potential vanadium-bearing streams, as market conditions may warrant.

The goal of the Company's vanadium review is to better quantify near- and mid-term vanadium revenue streams, in light of recent increases in vanadium prices, while minimizing the risks of market fluctuations.

Canyon Project

At the Canyon Project, the Company plans to continue to carry out engineering, procurement and construction management activities in 2018, including additional bench and pilot plant scale metallurgical test work of the uranium/copper mineralization, as well as to pursue any additional permitting actions that may be required to recover copper at the Mill. The timing of our plans to extract and process mineralized materials from this project will be based on the results of this additional evaluation work, along with market conditions, available financing, and sales requirements.

Other Operational Activities

During the first quarter of 2018, the Company received amendments to its Plans of Operations to expand operations at its La Sal Uranium/Vanadium Project and its Daneros Uranium Project, both of which are currently on standby. The Company continues to selectively advance certain permits at its other major conventional uranium projects.

The Company plans to continue the licensing and permitting of the Roca Honda Project, a large, high-grade conventional project in New Mexico, with the Record of Decision currently expected to be completed in 2019. The Company will also continue to evaluate the Bullfrog Property at its Henry Mountains Project. Expenditures for certain of these projects have been adjusted to coincide with expected dates of price recoveries based on our forecasts. All of these projects serve as important pipeline assets for the Company's future conventional production capabilities, as market conditions warrant.

The Company will also continue to pursue additional cost cutting initiatives, including further reductions in the scope of certain development initiatives, reductions in corporate overheads, the potential sale or abandonment of certain non-core properties and the sale of excess mining equipment and other assets.

Trade Petition

In January 2018, the Company participated in the filing of a Petition for Relief with the U.S. Department of Commerce under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (as amended) From Imports of Uranium Products that Threaten U.S. National Security (the "Petition"). The Petition describes how uranium and nuclear fuel from state-owned and state-subsidized enterprises in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and China potentially represent a threat to U.S. national security. The Petition seeks a remedy which will set a quota to limit imports of uranium into the U.S., effectively reserving 25% of the U.S. nuclear market for U.S. uranium production.

On July 18, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce ("DOC") initiated its investigation. Pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (as amended), starting on July 18, 2018, the Secretary of the DOC has 270 days to prepare a report to the President of the United States. Following receipt of the Secretary's report, the President then has 90 days to act on the Secretary's recommendations, and if necessary take action to "adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives" and/or pursue other lawful non-trade related actions to address the threat.

It should be noted, however, that there can be no certainty of the outcome of the petition, and therefore the outcome of this process is uncertain.

Sales of U3O8 and other revenue update and outlook

In the three months ended June 30, 2018, the Company completed deliveries of 500,000 pounds of U3O8 at a weighted average price of $53.55 per pound. On April 1, 2018, the Company completed the delivery of 400,000 pounds of U3O8 under two long-term contracts with a fixed price of $61.30 per pound, and on June 15, 2018, the Company completed the delivery of 100,000 pounds of U3O8 under a spot contract at $22.57 per pound, where the price is based on the average spot price per pound of uranium for the five weeks prior to the date of delivery. In the final six months of the year, the Company expects to complete one delivery of 100,000 pounds of U3O8 in Q4 under a contract, where the price is based on the average spot price per pound of uranium for the five weeks prior to the date of delivery. All of the deliveries completed were Company-produced pounds.

In Memoriam: Stephen P. Antony (1950 – 2018)

It is with deep sadness that the Company announces the passing of our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen P. Antony. Mr. Antony was a key driving force behind the growth of Energy Fuels and was instrumental in creating what is today the largest uranium and vanadium producer in the United States. His vision was to consolidate the best uranium mines and production facilities in the United States. Under Mr. Antony's leadership, Energy Fuels acquired Magnum Uranium (2009), Titan Uranium (2012), Denison Mines' US Mining Division (2012), Strathmore Resources (2013), Uranerz Energy (2015), and Mesteña Uranium (2016). Due in large part to Mr. Antony's foresight and passion, Energy Fuels now holds three uranium production facilities with over 12 million pounds of licensed capacity, the only near-term vanadium production facility in the United States, and a portfolio of producing and near-producing mines and mineral properties. The Company's Board, Management, and the entire Energy Fuels team will greatly miss Steve's intelligence, energy, integrity, and kindness.

About Energy Fuels: Energy Fuels is a leading integrated US-based uranium mining company, supplying U3O8 to major nuclear utilities. Its corporate offices are in Denver, Colorado, and all of its assets and employees are in the western United States. Energy Fuels holds three of America's key uranium production centers, the White Mesa Mill in Utah, the Nichols Ranch Processing Facility in Wyoming, and the Alta Mesa Project in Texas. The White Mesa Mill is the only conventional uranium mill operating in the U.S. today and has a licensed capacity of over 8 million pounds of U3O8 per year. The Nichols Ranch Processing Facility is an ISR production center with a licensed capacity of 2 million pounds of U3O8 per year. Alta Mesa is an ISR production center currently on standby. Energy Fuels also has the largest National Instrument 43-101 compliant uranium resource portfolio in the U.S. among producers, and uranium mining projects located in a number of Western U.S. states, including one producing ISR project, mines on standby, and mineral properties in various stages of permitting and development. The Company also produces vanadium as a by-product of its uranium production from certain of its mines on the Colorado Plateau, as market conditions warrant. The primary trading market for Energy Fuels' common shares is the NYSE American under the trading symbol "UUUU", and the Company's common shares are also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the trading symbol "EFR". Energy Fuels' website is www.energyfuels.com.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This news release contains certain "Forward Looking Information" and "Forward Looking Statements" within the meaning of applicable securities legislation, which may include, but is not limited to, statements with respect to: production, revenue and sales forecasts; the ability of the Company to secure any new sources of alternate feed materials, land clean-up materials, or other processing opportunities at the Mill; whether all or a portion of any copper resource at the Canyon project can be recovered at the Mill or elsewhere; optionality, and the Company's ability and readiness to re-start or expand any of its existing projects to respond to any improvements in uranium market conditions; any expectations regarding vanadium production at the Mill and other opportunities; any expectations regarding keeping the Mill in operation through 2018 and the generation of positive cash flow from the Mill as a result; expected timelines for the permitting and development of projects; the Company's expectations as to longer term fundamentals in the market and price projections; any expectations as to expenditures and cost reductions; any expectations with respect to the repayment of outstanding indebtedness; expectations of the Company to become or maintain its position as a leading uranium company in the United States; any expected benefits from inclusion in the Russell indexes; and any expectations with regard to the outcome of the Section 232 investigation. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "plans", "expects" "does not expect", "is expected", "is likely", "budget" "scheduled", "estimates", "forecasts", "intends", "anticipates", "does not anticipate", or "believes", or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will be taken", "occur", "be achieved" or "have the potential to". All statements, other than statements of historical fact, herein are considered to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements express or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements include risks associated with: production, revenue and sales forecasts; the ability of the Company to secure any new sources of alternate feed materials, land clean-up materials, or other processing opportunities at the Mill; whether all or a portion of any copper resource at the Canyon project can be recovered at the Mill or elsewhere; optionality, and the Company's ability and readiness to re-start or expand any of its existing projects to respond to any improvements in uranium market conditions; any expectations regarding vanadium production at the Mill and other opportunities; any expectations regarding keeping the Mill in operation through 2018 and the generation of positive cash flow from the Mill as a result; expected timelines for the permitting and development of projects; the Company's expectations as to longer term fundamentals in the market and price projections; any expectations as to expenditures and cost reductions; any expectations with respect to the repayment of outstanding indebtedness; expectations of the Company to become or maintain its position as a leading uranium company in the United States; any expected benefits from inclusion in the Russell indexes; any expectations with respect to the outcome of the Section 232 investigation; and the other factors described under the caption "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K dated March 9, 2018, which is available for review on EDGAR at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml, on SEDAR at www.sedar.com, and on the Company's website at www.energyfuels.com. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this news release, and the Company disclaims, other than as required by law, any obligation to update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, results, future events, circumstances, or if management's estimates or opinions should change, or otherwise. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, the reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company assumes no obligation to update the information in this communication, except as otherwise required by law.

Cision View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/energy-fuels-announces-q2-2018-results-including-55-million-of-working-capital-300691995.html

SOURCE Energy Fuels Inc.

Copyright 2018 Canada NewsWire

http://resourceinvestingnews.com/68349-energy-fuels-uranium-us-price-analyst.html


Analyst's Corner Return to Analyst's Corner Directory

Analyst Interviews are paid content requested by clients advertising on Resource Investing News. Client news is contextualized by analysts and the interview is disseminated to the Resource Investing News audience, because it has value to market watchers.

We interview an analyst who has prepared coverage of the company and interview them for an understanding of their perspective on the company, the investment potential of the company, and market news related to the company.

The information contained here is for information purposes only and is not to be construed as an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of securities.
Energy Fuels: A High-Leverage Play on the Uranium Price
Wednesday March 26, 2014, 1:41pm PDT

By Vivien Diniz - Exclusive to Resource Investing News

Rob Chang is a Metals and Mining Analyst at Cantor Fitzgerald Canada. He has covered the metals and mining space for over eight years for the sell-side and the buy-side. Prior to Cantor, Chang served on the equity research teams at Versant Partners, Octagon Capital and BMO Capital Markets. His buy-side experience includes managing $3 billion in assets as a director of research/portfolio manager at Middlefield Capital, where his primary resource portfolio outperformed its direct peer and benchmark by over 28% and 18%, respectively. He was also on a five-person multi-strategy hedge fund team, where he specialized in equity and derivative investments. He completed his Master of Business Administration from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.

RIN: We keep hearing about this uranium renaissance, but nothing has really happened yet. What’s been keeping the bull market for uranium at bay?

RC: In our opinion, there are two primary reasons prices remain low. First off, it’s the higher-than-normal inventory levels, and that’s mainly due to Japan not consuming the 20 million pounds that it usually consumes per year. Because of that we’re seeing a larger-than-normal inventory globally, so markets have 40 to 80 million pounds out there.

On top of that, we also have some markets waiting for Japan to announce the restarts of its reactors. There is a school of thought out there that believes Japan may never turn on any of the reactors although much of that dissipated with Japan’s recent announcement on its energy policy. However, as long as some of that still exists, there’s still going to be a little bit of an overhang, and a little bit of disbelief that the uranium renaissance, so to speak, will start.

That being said, we believe that’s unlikely for a couple of reasons. First off, Japan is running at a $75-billion deficit annually because of the substitution from nuclear power to other sources. That’s something it can’t afford given that the country continues to struggle economically.

On top of that, if we look at the global demand scenario and how it is shaping up, even if Japan doesn’t turn on all its reactors, the rate of growth will be so much that it doesn’t quite matter. In fact, given the current supply and demand situation, even if Japan doesn’t turn on any of its reactors, a major imbalance will still occur. Perhaps a little bit later, but it will still occur.

RIN: The general consensus is that uranium prices will go up. Do you have an idea of when that might happen?

RC: Our estimate is that’s going to be during the back half of this year. That’s when we’re going to really see the start. The reason is that from reports from utilities and producers, 2016 is the year when a lot of the utilities’ requirements will become uncovered.

What I mean by that is, generally utilities forecast how much uranium they need and make long-term contracts to get the supply in advance. However, because of the low price environment we’ve seen for awhile, many producers have been reluctant to negotiate at the lower prices. On top of that, utilities have been rewarded for waiting to lock in long-term contracts because the prices have been declining steadily, almost on a monthly basis. When you put those together, you’re seeing a lot less contract activity happening in the last few years. It’s to the point where, if we had full coverage, or close to full coverage of the last few years, in 2016 it flips dramatically to largely uncovered.

Knowing that, and being that we are only two years away, 2014 is the key year. We have a perfect storm happening.

RIN: Do you have an idea in terms of a target price? Are you expecting long-term prices to go up pretty quickly?

RC: Absolutely. We think prices will move pretty dramatically. For this year, we believe the price will average $43.25/lb. Then, next year, $62.50/lb and then $70/lb after. Given that we have $35/lb now, it’s going to be a pretty dramatic leap up.

RIN: That sounds good. You released a note on the US Department of Energy approving billions of dollars worth of nuclear loans. Can you elaborate a little bit on what that means for the nuclear landscape in the States? How does will it impact companies?

RC: The US is the number-one consumer, globally, of uranium and consumes about a quarter of global demand. There has been some thought that the US will be stepping away, or at least stagnant, in its uranium consumption.

This approval effectively green-lights Southern Co.’s Vogtle nuclear reactors in Georgia, and it shows the US is headed towards building more nuclear power. That shows domestic demand within the US, and is certainly positive that the country is going to consume more rather than the fear of them actually scaling back.

RIN: As far as the U.S. is concerned, what I’ve been hearing a lot more is to look at the ISR producers. What’s the difference in terms of economics between the hard-rock mining and the ISR mining?

RC: The difference between the two is that for ISR mining, it is solution mining. ISR miners are able to produce at a relatively low cost because essentially what they’re doing is drilling two holes. With one hole, they’re pumping solution into the ground; basically, soda water. On the other side they’re pulling it out. In between it’s dissolving uranium, making it mobile and sucking it up. It’s kind of an elegant low-environmental-impact way of mining. Generally, it’s lower cost because there’s very little rock moving and a lot less heavy equipment to operate the mine. That being said, it generally produces lower yields.

For the U.S. ISR producers, many of the ones that are emerging, or currently running, they’re generally expected to produce anywhere between 200,000 pounds to – when they’re fully ramped up – a million, maybe 2 million pounds. That’s pretty much their limit, given the type of mining method that they’re using and the size of most ISR amenable deposits.

Hardrock miners, such as Energy Fuels, which mine underground, and potentially open-pit as well, are the larger operations. Associated with them are higher costs, but they are capable of producing at a much larger scale. Whereas ISR producers would be doing 200,000 to a million pounds, EFR could scale up to multimillions rather easily, just like any other conventional type of mining you see. Higher cost is definitely higher production potential.

RIN: Just to look a little bit at Energy Fuels (TSX:EFR, NYSEMKT:UUUU), I’ve noticed that they get a lot of attention. They’re a pretty solid-looking company. What is it that draws this attention?

RC: There are a couple of really compelling points for Energy Fuels. First off, when you look at the fact that they own the only conventional mill in the entire US, that’s an important strategic advantage. There is no other place that you can conventionally mill uranium material, other than at the White Mesa mill.

The second thing is that it has a very impressive portfolio of projects, and past producing operations to the point where even though it is not currently operating in the current low price environment, quite a few can be turned on within six month and could probably over the course of a few years be able to ramp up production to anywhere from a million to potentially even 4 to 5 million pounds per year. When the price is right, EFR can act relatively quickly and be able to produce large amounts of uranium fairly quickly, capitalizing on the higher prices.

RIN: In terms of the significance of the White Mesa mill, you mentioned they are the only conventional mill in the US. What kind of a growth potential does the mill offer the company?

RC: The growth potential is that it has a strategic advantage for any new acquisitions because it will have the best cost profile in terms of figuring out the economics of acquiring projects. What I mean by that is if a competing company was to bid for a conventional mining asset, it would still need to factor in the cost of building its own mill … or the cost of paying EFR to mill the material for them. In contrast, EFR has that already built into their cost, and that’s a huge strategic advantage, because it can process it with its own mill – there isn’t that additional cost involved.

On top of that great negotiating power, EFR will have full visibility on the supply situation, at least on the conventional side, throughout the US. That’s because everyone has to go through EFR to process their material. It gives the company good informational advantages, and strategic acquisitions advantages as well.

RIN: Will Energy Fuels be taking advantage of toll milling?

RC: Absolutely. Toll milling gives EFR great opportunities to process other material at a very nice price. Since there is no competition, those using the toll mining services really have nowhere else to go, it’s certainly a very important key for Energy Fuels.

RIN: I found a December interview with Stephen Antony where he comments that Energy Fuels offers unique exposure to the growth of nuclear energy and the resulting uranium price increase. I think we touched a little bit on this already, but can you elaborate a little bit about what he may mean by that?

RC: It’s a high-leverage play on the price of uranium because the company is a higher-cost operator. When prices are low, of course the higher cost operator will not do as well as low cost producers, but if prices go higher, the company can make the decision to produce from its various operations fairly quickly. And as I said, within six months to about a year and a half it can produce up to 4 to 5 million pounds annually, quickly taking advantage and selling to the spot market that large volume of new production.

Keep in mind, the US only produces around 4 to 5 million pounds total, so EFR could effectively double US-based production if prices rise quickly. It can go from a company that is breaking even to a company that becomes very profitable very quickly. So that’s an excellent play. On top of that, the company owns a mill, so it gets to see supply coming from other locations, and of course, change prices accordingly to capture increased demand and increased desire to use its mill. That gives the company additional leverage.

RIN: You just mentioned how much the US produces per year, roughly. Is demand expected to grow?

RC: It’s expected to be mostly sideways. With the building of the new reactor right now, it’s certainly going to be positive. Long term, we still believe that the country is going to add anywhere between eight to 15 reactors from now until 2025. Globally speaking, the US accounts for about a quarter of the world’s power consumption of uranium, so it’s the world’s number-one consumer.

In total, the country consumes about 50 million pounds of uranium and produces about 4 to 5 million pounds. Because of that, the domestic security of supply is really important. Anyone producing from the US should get a premium simply because the US needs to have secure domestic sources of this material.

RIN: I heard recently that the DOE is actually selling some of its stockpiles of uranium. Is that true?

RC: Yes, the DOE uses that material to finance other parts of corroborations. For example, they’re decommissioning an enrichment facility, and they’re partially financing it by selling their inventories. So they have been doing that. It’s anywhere between 1 to 5 million pounds per year, sometimes up to 7 million. We do factor that into our model, and it’s expected that they will continue somewhere around that range.

RIN: Is that a strategic move on their end?

RC: They have a really large supply. They can afford to sell this material to finance projects and with this era of fiscal constraint, economics now rule the the day.

RIN: They aren’t even getting the best price for it at the moment, are they?

RC: Not at all. The ideal situation is that the DOE holds onto the material and does not further flood the market with material.

RIN: Now, Energy Fuels has a few partnerships with Cameco and Sumitomo. How do those factor into the company’s model?

RC: They certainly give support given that those are two large and notable organizations that have checked the quality of EFR’s portfolio and are backing the company. That certainly lends more credibility to the company, and those are experienced investors. That’s why I certainly believe it’s a positive to see them on the shareholder register.

RIN: What should investors be on the lookout for in regards to Energy Fuels in the coming year?

RC: The key thing really is the uranium price. Once it starts moving higher, it becomes an increasingly compelling story. As general market activity picks up, because it has a mill, the company is set to do very well; it is set up to become a good consolidator of the uranium space, especially on the western side of the US.

You may also see the company opportunistically pick up some good assets, which is going to be good for the overall portfolio. Overall, it’s a good leverage play.

RIN:Well that’s I have for today. Thank you for joining me Rob.

RC: Thank you.







Editorial Disclosure: Energy Fuels is an advertising client of the Investing News Network. This interview was conducted as part of their advertising campaign. This is paid-for content.

Rob Chang did not received compensation from the company for participating in this interview.

Securities Disclosure: Vivien Diniz holds no investment interest in any of the companies mentioned.

Rob Chang and Cantor Fitzgerald hold investments in Energy Fuels.



Tags: Energy Fuels, OTCQX:EFRFF, tsx:efr, uranium market, uranium price
Return to Analyst's Corner Directory
Read next article Forum Uranium Raises $3,045,605 Via Private Placement
Read more articles by Vivien Diniz

Ignite Your Portfolio With This Radioactive Pair Trade: Short Uranium Resources And Long Energy Fuels
Jul 30 2013, 10:30 | about: URRE (Uranium Resources, Inc.), EFRFF.PK (ENERGY FUELS INC), includes: USU
Editor's notes: URRE's recent run-up has left it drastically overvalued and EFRFF.PK accordingly undervalued. A former hedge fund analyst who called OCLS's decline likes the combination as the market looks closer.
Alpha-Rich articles are our best money-making long and short investment ideas.
They are released exclusively to Seeking Alpha Pro users 24 hours before publication.
Learn more about Seeking Alpha Pro.

Disclosure: I am short URRE. (More...)

EFRFF Should be Trading at Conservatively 10x the Valuation of URRE

As an analyst, I will admit to having a short bias by nature in the current market. This is mainly a function of the significant run-up in the overall equity market recently, and my thinking that a market correction may be in store in the near future. That being said, I know it is a much more difficult, and oftentimes futile, effort to try and time the overall market than it is to perform the diligent fundamental analysis required to find the best companies to both invest in and to bet against. As a result, I am always scanning for what seem to be the most primed stocks both to outperform and underperform in a given sector, looking to put on both a long and short trade at the same time in the same sector. A "pair trade" allows an investor to hedge out some market risk while also allowing for the potential of outsized gains by investing with the best and betting against the worst. Some of the largest and most sophisticated investment funds, including the largest hedge fund in the world at Bridgewater Associates, have been known to use pair trades often.

I found what looks to be a perfect setup for a pair trade with the recent run-up in the share prices of several uranium stocks. Not every stock in the sector enjoyed this run-up, including what I believe to be the strongest fundamental company in the uranium sector from a valuation perspective. This is a big positive in terms of timing an investment for the long side. I will get back to this company in a moment.

Unsubstantiated, Other-worldly Stock Price Takeoff in Two Particular Uranium Stocks

The shareholders of two uranium stocks in particular enjoyed quite spectacular elevator rides up in recent weeks: USEC Inc. (USU) has gone from $2.96 on July 8th to closing at $29.02 yesterday, rising almost 900% in just three weeks. Fellow Seeking Alpha author J Mintzmyer just put out a piece yesterday on why he thinks investors should stay away from USEC at the current price.

I had looked at USU before this article, and now, even after having read it, there is one uranium company that stands out to me as a significantly better short opportunity: Uranium Resources (URRE). There are several outside factors in play that caused an unjustified double in share price over just a one week period for URRE. In some ways, URRE reminds me of another company, Oculus (OCLS), that I covered thoroughly here and here on Seeking Alpha and recommended readers to short the stock when the share price was $6. Just as fast as Oculus had risen to $6, it came back to its current share price of $2.76. I expect a similar fate for URRE once investors realize this is not the stock to be holding to get the leveraged benefit of an upside turn in the uranium market.

As previously mentioned, there is one uranium company that I have found stands particularly poised to benefit from what seems to be a consensus among analysts will be a near-term significant rise in uranium spot prices. This rise in uranium spot prices will be a product of good old-fashioned supply and demand economics. I like when investment theses can be spelled out almost as simply as these three charts help show:

Here are two charts showing the increasing demand and resulting shortage of supply in the overall uranium market:

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

Now here is a Uranium Mine Production Cost Curve put together on 2010 data from the World Nuclear Association suggesting US$40/lb is a marginal price:

(click to enlarge)

The World Nuclear Association also notes at the bottom of this chart that "the cost curve may rise steeply at higher uranium requirements." It is pretty clear from the two charts above it that the uranium requirements have already risen significantly since 2010 and are set to continue to rise even more significantly. Production will not be able to keep up with supply. The U.S. alone consumes 55 million pounds of uranium each year while producing just 5 million pounds. The company I referenced earlier that I believe to be the long in the uranium sector is responsible for 25-30% of U.S. production while having the only operating conventional uranium mill in the U.S. This company is Energy Fuels (EFRFF.PK).

Here is the chart of Energy Fuels, where you can see the price run-up prior to Fukushima in 2011 when uranium spot prices went from $40 to $70:

(click to enlarge)

Here is the uranium spot price chart showing the price run-up from $40 to $70 prior to Fukushima:

(click to enlarge)

History Repeats Itself; Smart Money Again Backing Energy Fuels

Another key thing to note regarding the 10x jump in Energy Fuels stock price shown above, in addition to the rise in uranium spot prices during the same time frame, was the smart money that invested in Energy Fuels at $0.16/share in 2010 and experienced the 10 bagger potential here firsthand. Dundee Resources acquired a 19.8% ownership interest in Energy Fuels on July 7, 2010 at $0.16 per common share, right before the stock rose to $1.40 a share. Dundee Resources is a renowned smart-money investment fund in the resource space. Ned Goodman, the CEO of Dundee, and his firm have gotten so behind Energy Fuels that his son Mark Goodman joined the board. A top investment banker in the uranium space, Graham Moylan from Goodman's own Dundee, joined the company as CFO as well. This speaks volumes about Dundee's belief in and commitment to Energy Fuels.

More importantly for us as investors today, Energy Fuels' stock is back to $0.18 per share and Dundee just invested again at $0.14 per share last month. History repeats itself and smart money gets into the beaten down sectors ahead of the curve. Now is the time to get in alongside them and ride the wave again.

This table that Dundee Securities put together is an eye-opener as well in regards to the current severe mispricing of Energy Fuels' stock:

Further Analysis and Breakdown Between URRE and EFRFF

This past week URRE was up 112% vs 6% for EFRFF in the same time period. URRE's share price performance was likely primarily a result of the Japanese upper house election results last Sunday, which many believe paves the way for the historically pro-nuclear LDP party to re-start the vast majority of Japan's 50 nuclear reactors. These reactors have been idle since the March 2011 Fukushima incident. The re-start of Japan's reactor fleet could have an even further significant impact on near-term uranium demand and uranium prices.

The outlook for uranium prices is already very bright given the robust growth projected in nuclear power worldwide, but the re-start of nuclear reactors in Japan could be an important near-term catalyst. The uranium spot price has fallen from $73 per lb. pre-Fukushima to its current level of $34.50 per lb. The U.S. is the largest nuclear power market in the world, but is heavily reliant on imported uranium for ~90% of its supply requirements. The Russia-U.S. HEU agreement, which currently supplies the U.S. with ~50% of its imported uranium, is set to terminate in November 2013. As such, many market observers, including myself, believe that it is an ideal time to look at U.S. uranium producers.

A number of investors last week went to URRE as a means to get exposure to a brighter outlook for uranium prices. Below are eight reasons why I believe investors looking for exposure to a strengthening uranium market should be buying Energy Fuels and Shorting Uranium Resources:

1. Bona Fide Uranium Production

EFRFF is a substantial U.S.-based uranium producer, the second largest in the country with guidance of 1.175m lbs of uranium production for the current fiscal year. URRE will have no uranium production in the current fiscal year. URRE will most likely have minimal (50,000-100,000 oz) to no production next year either.

2. Control of the Only Conventional Uranium Mill

EFRFF owns the only licensed, operating conventional uranium mill in the U.S., the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. It is a very costly and time consuming process to permit and build a new uranium mill in this country, creating a very significant barrier to entry in the U.S. market (currently the largest nuclear power market in the world). URRE does not have a conventional mill and therefore its conventional uranium resources are "stranded" from a production perspective, unless it can actually permit and build a new mill or negotiate access to White Mesa from EFRFF (for example through toll milling).

3. Scalability

EFRFF has a truly scalable production base that can increase as uranium prices increase through its standby mines, other development projects as well as toll milling opportunities. URRE's potential production from its ISR projects is comparatively smaller with less scale.

4. Quality Uranium Sales Contracts with Utilities

EFRFF will deliver ~1 million lbs of uranium in its current fiscal year pursuant to contracts with three different utilities at a realized price of $56 per lb, a 60%+ premium to the current spot price. A key consideration for utilities when entering into long-term uranium supply contracts is security of supply. URRE has two contracts with foreign trading houses that have realized prices based on discounts to either the quoted uranium spot or long-term prices.

5. Analyst Coverage and Target Prices

According to Bloomberg, EFRFF has four covering analysts with an average target price of $0.3775, a 102% premium to yesterday's closing price. URRE only has coverage from one analyst with a price target of $3.90, a discount of 27% to yesterday's closing price.

6. Acquisition and Growth

EFRFF is growing. EFRFF is in the process of a major acquisition of Strathmore Minerals (STM-T, STHJF-OTCQX) which presents numerous operational synergies and greatly enhances EFRFF's production scalability. URRE recently announced significant cost-cutting efforts and in its most recent 10-Q indicated that it will likely need to issue equity pursuant to an ATM share offering program over the next 12 months to meet its funding requirements. This means shareholders are facing likely large dilution in the near-term.

7. Key Strategic Partner

KEPCO is Energy Fuels' (and Strathmore's) largest shareholder and is supporting Energy Fuels' acquisition of Strathmore (as announced last week). KEPCO invested $8 million in Strathmore in 2012 to develop Strathmore's Gas Hills project in Wyoming. There could be significant synergies between Strathmore`s Gas Hills project and its Sheep Mountain project in Wyoming which are only 28 miles apart. In 2012, Energy Fuels released a Pre-Feasibility Study on Sheep Mountain which described attractive project economics under three separate production scenarios, with the preferred scenario having a Net Present Value of $201 million (using a 7% discount rate and $65/lb. uranium price) and a production rate of up to 1.5 million lbs. per year and an initial mine life of 15 years.

Conclusion

M&A activity has picked up in the uranium market, which can typically signal a market bottom as major players eye value in the space. I believe Energy Fuels offers the best combination of limited downside in current market conditions and leveraged upside to rising prices in the Uranium spot price market. On the other end of the spectrum, Uranium Resources has significant downside risk, particularly after its share price just doubled in a week and there is the near-term likelihood of the company accessing its available $9 million in share value under ATM. Its future looks far bleaker as well in terms of any potential upside with no current or near-term production.

Upon completion of the Strathmore acquisition, Energy Fuels will have a fully diluted market cap of $180 million at its current share price. Uranium Resources currently supports a $110 million market cap. Being conservative, based upon Energy Fuels' current production of ~1 million pounds of uranium per year and an optimistic projection for Uranium Resources of 100,000 pounds of uranium next year, in addition to everything else discussed in this article, Energy Fuels should be trading at 10x the valuation of Uranium Resources.

I believe a pair trade of going long Energy Fuels and short Uranium Resources is the ideal way to play the uranium sector.

Additional disclosure: I am long EFRFF
This is an Alpha-Rich Article
Alpha-Rich articles are our best money-making long and short investment ideas.
They are released exclusively to Seeking Alpha Pro users 24 hours before publication.
Learn more about Seeking Alpha Pro.
About this article

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1583262-ignite-your-portfolio-with-this-radioactive-pair-trade-short-uranium-resources-and-long-energy-fuels?source=google_news

Denison finalizes $110M deal to sell U.S. assets to Energy Fuels
By The Canadian Press | May 24, 2012
Chat inShare Email More Sharing Services

TORONTO - Denison Mines Corp.(TSX:DML) has reached a definitive agreement to spin off its U.S. assets in a mostly stock deal that will see its shareholders receive a controlling interest in fellow uranium miner Energy Fuels Inc. (TSX:EFR).

Under terms of the stock-swap deal valued at more than $100 million, Energy Fuels will issue a promissory note and a nominal amount of cash to acquire Denison's U.S. mining assets and operations as well as all of the inter-company debt between Denison and the U.S. mining division.

Toronto-based Energy Fuels will later pay off the note by issuing some 425.4 million common shares to Denison's shareholders, who will then own about 66.5 per cent of the stock in Energy Fuels.

Based on Wednesday's closing price of 26 cents per Energy Fuels share, the deal would have a value of about $110 million.

The arrangement, which is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval, also calls on the parties not to solicit competing offers and provides the right to match any superior proposal. A reciprocal break fee of $3 million is payable under certain circumstances.

In the past, analysts have said that Denison, by divesting its U.S. assets and operations, would make itself a more attractive takeover prospect.

Back in April, RBC Capital Markets analyst Adam Schatzker said the U.S. operations "acted as a poison pill for potential acquirers."

"The U.S. assets suffered from unpredictable grades, fluctuating production and high cash costs," Schatzker wrote in a note to clients.

"While they offered investors financial leverage through high operating costs, they were likely not attractive to more senior mining companies. On the other hand, the Canadian assets, located in the heart of one of the top uranium camps in the world, offer the potential for world-class discoveries."

Energy Fuels president and CEO Steve Antony said at the time that the proposed deal would be transformational for his company and reshape the landscape of the uranium sector in the United States.

"It combines the highly strategic asset of the only operating uranium mill in the U.S., White Mesa, with a significant resource base that substantially increases White Mesa's available feedstock."

"The result is an unmatched production growth profile and the opportunity for both Energy Fuels and Denison shareholders to benefit from the clear operational synergies that result from this transaction.''


http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/85353--denison-finalizes-110m-deal-to-sell-u-s-assets-to-energy-fuels

Small Uranium Stocks Tempt Major Players
Companies / Uranium May 09, 2012 - 01:53 AM

By: The_Energy_Report

Companies

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleInvestors may still be holding their breath, but larger mining companies aren't waiting around for the price of uranium to go up. No, indeed, they are buying smaller companies on the cheap. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Equity Research Analyst Rob Chang of Versant Partners makes his case for deep value and discusses his favorite plays. With or without Germany and Japan, life goes on for uranium producers.

The Energy Report: Fourteen months after the fact, the biggest story in uranium is still the tsunami that struck Japan and destroyed four nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. Japan is attempting to eradicate its dependency on nuclear energy. Are any plants still operating? Will all reactors be shut down in the near future?

Rob Chang: My numbers indicate that there are 50 reactors in Japan in total with only one still operating, and that last one is scheduled for a regular maintenance shutdown in early May. Since the Fukushima disaster occurred, every reactor that has been turned off for routine maintenance has not been permitted to restart. By mid-May, Japan will no longer run on nuclear power at all.

TER: There is a huge rise in carbon emissions in Japan, where fuel oil consumption for power production has doubled. Are drastically increased emissions likely to affect policy decisions in Japan, Germany or elsewhere?

RC: The carbon emissions are certainly growing. For Japan and Germany, an incredible rise is expected. There was an estimate that over the next few years, the increase in CO2 for Germany alone will be between 170–400 million tons (Mt) of additional CO2, which completely contradicts the country's previous goals. The populations and governments of these two countries are currently putting carbon emission concerns behind their fears of nuclear power. Germany is aggressively following its anti-nuclear power path while moving toward renewables and using other sources of power, such as natural gas, which unfortunately does generate a lot of CO2. Whether the country decides to go back to its original commitment of reducing CO2 emissions or to stay the path of avoiding nuclear at all costs will certainly be an issue, considering that alternative energy sources can't yet meet their energy demands.

TER: It sounds like there could be some very interesting alternative plays emerging from Germany and Japan's planned energy shifts, as both countries have large economic bases.

RC: That's the goal for both countries, to move toward alternative energy, which includes solar, wind power, hydro and geothermal. The problem with that is none of these can really provide a consistent form of baseload power. With solar, if you get a sustained period of darkness, you're going to have problems. You could also have a lack of wind, or a lack of suitable locations to build dams to generate hydro-electric power. As for geothermal, Japan has some capacity, but studies show that it's not enough to fully replace nuclear.

TER: What are the predominant, global sources of baseload energy?

RC: Baseload sources of power, those that are available at all times, include natural gas, coal and nuclear. Of the three, only one is zero-carbon emitting after being built, and that would be nuclear power. That's the big argument in favor of nuclear power. It is pretty much the only source of baseload power that solves all of the problems in terms of carbon emissions, low-cost power production and being relatively safe outside of the potential of nuclear meltdowns. Even when we look at Fukushima, it's really more about fear than reality. Nuclear power is still quite safe.

TER: Rob, you said nuclear is low-cost compared to other forms of energy. Tell me more.

RC: The costs of operating a nuclear power plant after it's already been built are probably the lowest among all energy sources. If you look at it in terms of alternative energy, which are heavily government-subsidized forms of power, it's actually very expensive to run those projects. On top of that, you still have the additional not-in-my-backyard problems for wind farms, which many people dislike. Although alternative forms of energy sound like a great option, nuclear power makes a lot more sense.

TER: Looking at a chart, uranium seems to have some support at about $50/pound (lb), and it seems to be in a trading range now with resistance at around $55/lb. That looks like a consolidation pattern to me.

uranium

RC: I'm more of a fundamentals analyst than a technical analyst, but I do observe the same patterns that you're seeing. It seems like it's trading in that range primarily because of near-term supply and demand fundamentals. Two, three or five years from now, if mine production schedules go the way they're supposed to, we should be in balance, with maybe even a slight surplus.

TER: Where is new supply coming from?

RC: The three primary mines that are coming online that are expected to meet upcoming demand are Cigar Lake in the Athabasca, run by Cameco Corp. (CCO:TSX; CCJ:NYSE), the expansion of Olympic Dam by BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP:NYSE; BHPLF:OTCPK) in Australia and the Imouraren mine that's run by AREVA (AREVA:EPA) in Niger. Together, these make up the bulk of the upcoming supply that's theoretically supposed to balance the increase in demand. That's assuming the World Nuclear Association's best-case scenario, as presented last year, unfolds. Demand may be lower or higher, but it does take into account the shutdowns in Japan and Germany.

TER: Does this consolidation pattern have anything to do with the acquisitions we've been seeing in the industry?

RC: I can't really say it is definitely a consolidation pattern. But when you are seeing consolidation in the industry, you generally see it in the low parts of the market when larger firms can see value in other firms and believe that their prices are going to go up and markets are going to be better. They might as well buy now when it's cheap and get bigger. We are certainly seeing that now, and we have been seeing that for the last two years. In my opinion, we're going to see more of it going forward.

We've seen some pretty nice ones—the Chinese buying Extract Resources Ltd. (EXT:TSX; EXT:ASX), Fission Energy Corp. (FIS:TSX.V; FSSIF:OTCQX) getting Pitchstone Exploration Ltd. (PXP:TSX.V) and now Energy Fuels Inc. (EFR:TSX) acquiring the U.S. assets of Denison Mines Corp. (DML:TSX; DNN:NYSE.A). These represent a lot of very positive signs for the industry because usually when you see consolidation, it signals the bottom in most industries. It looks as though we may be seeing that as well here.

TER: What about uranium price? Will it remain weak, as it is now at $50–55/lb.?

RC: It could, unless we have a catalyst. Right now, it seems like a very comfortable range for uranium. The main catalysts that many are waiting for is Japan's possible decision to restart its nuclear reactors. Once that happens, I would bet that we would see a run-up in the spot price. How far up it goes will be tough to say. It will entirely depend on how aggressive the nuclear roll-out or re-ignition occurs in Japan. For most of us, we believe that it's not a matter of if, but when the reactors are restarted. The government has already decided that it needs to. It's more a matter of getting the locals and the mayors in the areas to sign off on it. But once that happens, we should see the price go up.

TER: What is your price forecast?

RC: I believe uranium prices will rise a little bit, from here at least. For 2012, we're expecting an average price of $55/lb.

TER: If it rose above $55/lb, would that create a secular bull trend in uranium equities?

RC: I believe so. The uranium equities have been moving higher over the last six to eight months, primarily based on the fundamentals despite the fact that the uranium price hasn't moved. I fully recognize that they've come off highs from January and February, but overall they're still up relative to the Fukushima event. I believe that as the uranium spot price moves higher, there will certainly be more interest in the uranium equities.

TER: What names are you recommending to investors?

RC: The three names that we cover are Energy Fuels, Fission Energy and Kivalliq Energy Corp. (KIV:TSX.V). We still are very bullish on all three.

TER: Ok, let's take Energy Fuels first.

RC: As you know, Energy Fuels acquired the U.S. assets of Denison Mines, but Denison has been getting most of the publicity because it is basically cleaning itself up to be acquired by Rio Tinto (RIO:NYSE; RIO:ASX) for its Athabasca assets. However, people should be recognizing Energy Fuels as a big winner given that it has established itself as the premier producer in the U.S. That's pretty significant, because the U.S. is the largest consumer of uranium. The U.S. consumes over 50 million pounds (50 Mlb), but it only produces 4 Mlb/year. So there's a massive shortfall between U.S. demand and supply. Security of supply is always going to be important for power generation.

Another thing is that Energy Fuels acquired the White Mesa mill from Denison, which allows it to put its Energy Queen and Whirlwind mines into production. Those are two turn-key mines that could be turned on within a year of the production decision. Those two mines are basically on pause while Energy Fuels clears all of the permitting and rebuilding hurdles for the Piñon Ridge mill, but now that it has acquired the White Mesa mill, it no longer needs to wait for Piñon Ridge. It can just go and process everything through there. So, unlocking those two mines will allow it to produce over 1 Mlb/year in the U.S. and provide immediate upside. There aren't that many producers out there, and Energy Fuels is a new producer on the block. I can see the company commanding a premium once the dust settles.

TER: Your target price on Energy Fuels is $1.10, which is an implied 300% return from here. Do you believe that startup of these two turn-key mines is going to be the catalyst for that kind of move?

RC: It's one of many catalysts. It's a near-term producer now, so that is also factoring the net asset value (NAV) of the production coming from those mines. It factors in all revenue streams coming into the company. The reason why, in my opinion, Energy Fuels has been trading this low is that uranium has been out of favor and Energy Fuels has been viewed previously as a developer that was not producing and still needed a permit. These hurdles have been addressed, improved upon or eliminated. I think once people give Energy Fuels a good hard look, they will realize it's significantly undervalued.

The overall market has been pretty negative, so investors are pretty reluctant to deploy capital. And they generally prefer producing companies that are large and subsequently safer. Energy Fuels has historically been a developer, but will be a producer after the deal closes. For this combination of reasons, it is not moving up as much as it should be. I believe that this is temporary and when sanity returns to the market, Energy Fuels will rise.

TER: What about Kivalliq?

RC: Kivalliq has the highest grades of any uranium company outside of the Athabasca Basin, 0.69% U3O8. The global median for U3O8 grades is 0.07%. So at 0.69%, Kivalliq is actually one decimal spot to the left of the global median. Kivalliq is located in Nunavut, which does present some challenges given there is little infrastructure in the area. However, the company already has 27 Mlb of this high-grade uranium near the surface. It has the potential of getting a lot more. There is the possibility that it could grow this to a +100 Mlb resource with the proper time and drilling. This makes Kivalliq a very interesting company. Another reason to like this company is that to the northeast of it, AREVA is developing the Kiggavik uranium deposit, which is a +100 Mlb uranium deposit. AREVA is way ahead of Kivalliq in terms of exploration/development, and there may be some synergies involved there in terms of Kivalliq being able to use AREVA's infrastructure builds. So I'm very positive on Kivalliq.

TER: Kivalliq has been weak for the past month. Does that make it even more interesting to you? Do you see it as a deep value currently?

RC: Absolutely. I have $1.10 target price for Kivalliq as well. That's about 150% of upside from here. So I believe there is lots of upside.

TER: Your third pick was Fission.

RC: I really like Fission Energy. This is in the Athabasca Basin, located right next door to Hathor Exploration, which is now Rio Tinto's Roughrider deposit. In fact, the western extension of the Roughrider deposit actually goes over the border into Fission's territory. If Rio Tinto was to ever develop this, it would make a lot of sense to develop that little nub that goes over the border. There's no reason for Rio Tinto to stop right at the property line. A few meters to the west of that is Fission Energy's J Zone deposit, which has an initial NI 43-101-compliant resource of 9 Mlb that it announced earlier this year. It would make a lot of sense for anyone, like Rio Tinto, wanting to consolidate the region, to buy Fission Energy next door as well as Denison's and AREVA's assets. Within a 5 kilometer (km) area, there is already more than 110 Mlb of uranium. So it would make a lot of sense for one company just to consolidate the whole region.

TER: An acquisition certainly does not look to be baked into Fission's stock price.

RC: It was previously. Fission traded over $1 at one point in November, when Hathor was being acquired. It's the classic situation where investors buy on the potential and when it doesn't happen immediately, they give up and sell. It is further exacerbated by the fact that we have a negative market in general.

Even though you've seen Fission drift lower, the story hasn't fundamentally changed. If anything, it is closer to actually happening now than it was right after Rio Tinto bought Hathor. I haven't seen many scenarios where an acquiring company buys Company A and immediately turns around and buys Company B. They generally take some time in between to digest the acquisition or do more work. So, if anything, now would probably be a better time to buy Fission.

Another reason Fission has drifted down is that many expect Rio Tinto to acquire Denison first given that it's larger, and then turn its attention to Fission last, or after AREVA. So maybe it's more of a timing issue and people would get back into Fission when they see more activity in the basin and because they could see a bid for Denison.

TER: What are some other names you like?

RC: Uranerz Energy Corp. (URZ:TSX; URZ:NYSE.A) is a near-term producer. It is scheduled to produce by the end of this year, which would make it the next uranium producer in the world. It is located in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. It has pretty high grades as far as in situ recovery (ISR) mining goes. It's an ISR miner, which means it uses injection wells and pumps the solution out of the ground. It is a low-cost operation similar to that of Uranium One Inc. (UUU:TSX) in Kazakhstan and some of the assets that Cameco has in the U.S. Uranerz is also run by one of the best management teams that I've come across in the uranium space. Given that it's a near-term producer, I am very positive on Uranerz for the same reason I feel that Energy Fuels is a bigger deal than what the market is giving it credit for.

Another name that I've very positive on is U3O8 Corp. (UWE:TSX.V). It is basically a South American consolidator of uranium assets, with assets in Colombia, Argentina and Guyana. I had the opportunity to visit all three. The flagship property is in Colombia, where it has decent grades. It looks like it there will be a suite of metals that the company can extract. In fact, it believes it can economically extract other metals such as molybdenum, vanadium, some rare earths and phosphate. Its asset in Guyana could be another Athabasca Basin.

TER: Many thanks to you, Rob.

RC: I've enjoyed it. Thank you for having me back.

Versant Partners Analyst Rob Chang has extensive financial markets experience dating back to 1995. He helped run a multistrategy hedge fund, worked in base metals research at BMO Capital Markets, managed resource funds at a boutique investment management firm and was a global mining equity analyst at an independent investment bank.

Want to read more exclusive Energy Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Exclusive Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:
1) George S. Mack of The Energy Report conducted this interview. He personally and/or his family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Energy Report: Fission Energy Corp., Uranerz Energy Corp. and Energy Fuels Inc.. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for services.
3) Rob Chang: I personally and/or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.

Streetwise – The Energy Report is Copyright © 2012 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.



The Energy Report does not render general or specific investment advice and does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any industry or company mentioned in this report.



From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.



Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.



Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.



Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

101 Second St., Suite 110
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel.: (707) 981-8204
Fax: (707) 981-8998

© 2005-2012 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34567.html

PRESS RELEASE
April 16, 2012, 5:16 p.m. EDT
Energy Fuels Inc. and Denison Mines Corp. Announce Transaction to Create Leading U.S. Uranium Company

TORONTO, ONTARIO, Apr 16, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Energy Fuels Inc. ("Energy Fuels" or "EFR") CA:EFR -7.27% and Denison Mines Corp. ("Denison" or "DML") CA:DML -3.91% DNN -2.25% today announced that they have entered into a Letter Agreement to complete a transaction (the "Transaction") whereby EFR will acquire all of Denison's mining assets and operations located in the United States (the "US Mining Division") from Denison in exchange for 425,441,494 common shares of EFR (the "EFR Share Consideration"). Immediately following the closing of the Transaction, Denison will complete a Plan of Arrangement (the "Denison Arrangement") whereby Denison will complete a reorganization of its capital and will distribute the EFR Share Consideration to DML shareholders on a pro rata basis as a return of capital in the course of that reorganization. Upon completion of the Denison Arrangement, Denison shareholders will receive approximately 1.106 common shares of EFR for each common share of DML owned and will in aggregate own approximately 66.5% of the issued and outstanding common shares of EFR.

Energy Fuels and Denison believe that the Transaction and the Denison Arrangement will provide a number of substantial benefits for shareholders of both companies, including the following:




-- Creation of the largest 100% U.S. pure-play uranium producer and one of
the largest holders of National Instrument 43-101("NI 43-101") compliant
U.S. based uranium resources.
-- 2012 production forecasts totaling greater than 25% of total U.S.
estimated production.
-- Measured and Indicated Resources of 49.8 million lbs of U3O8, plus
Inferred Resources of 17.9 million lbs of U3O8.
-- U.S. focus provides compelling fundamentals: domestic consumption of 55
million lbs of U3O8 per year vs. domestic production of only 4 million
lbs of U3O8 per year.
-- Clear operational synergies and capital efficiencies to increase
production.
-- Combination of mining and development assets which will accelerate the
rate of development of EFR mines, provide higher throughput of mill
feed, and extend the number of years of production at the White Mesa
Mill.
-- EFR's Sheep Mountain Project is an advanced-stage development asset
which provides flexibility to bring an additional 1.5 million lbs per
year of U.S.-produced U3O8 on-line.
-- Creation of a strategic platform for continued uranium consolidation
within the U.S.
-- Substantial vanadium by-product from the White Mesa Mill and Colorado
Plateau Properties, where historic uranium to vanadium ratios have
averaged approximately 5:1.
-- Combined management expertise, with decades of combined uranium mining
and processing experience.
-- DML shareholders to benefit from the division of two distinctly
different business profiles as well as exclusive management focus on
exploration and development, such as DML's high-profile Wheeler River
project in the Athabasca Basin region of northern Saskatchewan and its
Mutanga project in Zambia.




Steve Antony, President and CEO of Energy Fuels commented, "This transaction is transformational for Energy Fuels and reshapes the landscape of the uranium sector within the U.S. It combines the highly strategic asset of the only operating uranium mill in the U.S., White Mesa, with a significant resource base that substantially increases White Mesa's available feedstock. The result is an unmatched production growth profile and the opportunity for both Energy Fuels and Denison shareholders to benefit from the clear operational synergies that result from this transaction. I look forward to working with Denison's U.S. team to maximize the benefits of this important combination."

Ron Hochstein, President and CEO of Denison added, "This transaction is an important step forward for Denison. The Company has evolved on two parallel but different tracks, being both an exploration and development entity with a global footprint and an established producer in the United States. We are pleased to have the opportunity to combine our U.S. operations with such a complimentary set of assets and people. I'm excited about the opportunities that lie ahead for both Denison and Energy Fuels shareholders and believe that this transaction only serves to strengthen the operations of both companies."

Transaction Details

Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, the parties have agreed to enter into exclusive negotiations with a view to entering into a definitive agreement in respect of the Transaction (the "Arrangement Agreement"). The execution of the Arrangement Agreement is subject to the following conditions:




(a) Korea Electric Power Corporation ("KEPCO") shall have waived its right
of first opportunity provided for in the strategic relationship
agreement dated as of June 15, 2009 among Denison, KEPCO and a
subsidiary of KEPCO, or the 30-day period for exercising such right
shall have expired without KEPCO exercising right;
(b) the entering into of support agreements with all directors and
officers of Denison, who own shares of Denison, and Zebra Holdings and
Investments S.a.r.l. and Lorito Holdings S.a.r.l.;
(c) the entering into of support agreements with all directors and
officers of Energy Fuels, who own shares of Energy Fuels, and with the
three largest shareholders of Energy Fuels;
(d) the prior approval by the boards of directors of each of Denison and
Energy Fuels;
(e) there shall not have been any event or change that has had or would be
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the business,
operations, results of operations, prospects, assets, liabilities or
financial condition of the U.S. Mining Division and of the Energy
Fuels group taken as a whole.




The three largest shareholders of Energy Fuels, Dundee Resources Ltd., Pinetree Capital Ltd. and Mega Uranium Ltd. who collectively own approximately 22.7% of Energy Fuels' outstanding common shares, have indicated their willingness to enter into support agreements in respect of the Transaction. Zebra Holdings and Investments S.a.r.l. and Lorito Holdings S.a.r.l., which combined are one of the largest shareholders of Denison, owning approximately 9.9% of Denison's outstanding commons shares, have also indicated their willingness to enter into support agreements in respect of the Transaction.

At its shareholder meeting to approve the Transaction, Energy Fuels also expects to seek shareholder approval to implement a 10-for-1 consolidation of its common shares.

Following execution of the Arrangement Agreement, it is anticipated that completion of the Transaction will be subject to the following additional conditions:




a) approval of the Denison Arrangement by Denison shareholders;
b) approval of the issuance of the EFR Share Consideration as part of the
Transaction by Energy Fuels shareholders;
c) court approval of the Denison Arrangement;
d) receipt of third party approvals and consents; and
e) receipt of all required regulatory approvals, including acceptance by
the Toronto Stock Exchange.




The Letter Agreement contains customary deal protection mechanisms, including a reciprocal break fee of Cdn$3.0 million payable in certain circumstances, non-solicitation provisions and a right to match any superior proposal.

Completion of the Transaction is subject to a number of conditions and contingencies, many of which are beyond the control of Denison and Energy Fuels. These conditions include the entering into of definitive agreements, receipt of third party and regulatory approvals, receipt of shareholder and court approval, and the absence of any material adverse changes. Although it is the intention of Denison and Energy Fuels to proceed as expeditiously as possible toward completion of the Transaction and the Denison Arrangement, there can be no guarantee that these transactions will be completed.

Advisors and Counsel

Dundee Securities Ltd. is acting as financial advisor to Energy Fuels and its board of directors, and has provided a verbal opinion to the effect that, as of the date hereof, the consideration offered to Denison by Energy Fuels is fair, from a financial point of view, to Energy Fuels. Dundee Securities Ltd. and Dundee Resources Ltd. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Dundee Corporation. Borden, Ladner and Gervais LLP is acting as legal advisor to Energy Fuels.

Haywood Securities Inc. is acting as financial advisor to Denison and its board of directors, and has provided an opinion to the effect that, as of the date hereof and subject to the assumptions, limitations and qualifications set out therein, the consideration to be received by shareholders of Denison is fair, from a financial point of view, to shareholders of Denison. Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP is acting as legal advisor to Denison.

Conference Call

Energy Fuels and Denison will be hosting a conference call on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 starting at 10:30 a.m. (Toronto time) to discuss the Transaction. The call will be available live through a webcast link on Energy Fuels website ( www.energyfuels.com ) and Denison's website ( www.denisonmines.com ), and by dialing 1-888-789-9572 (toll free) or 416-695-7806. A recorded version of the conference call will be available for playback approximately two hours following the conclusion of the call by dialing 905-694-9451 or 800-408-3053 (password:6637859). The presentation will also be available at www.energyfuels.com and www.denisonmines.com .

Overview of EFR and Denison's U.S. Mining Division

Energy Fuels Inc.

Energy Fuels Inc. is a uranium and vanadium mineral development company. The Company recently acquired Titan Uranium Inc., including the Sheep Mountain Project in the Crooks Gap District of Wyoming. The Company also received a Final Radioactive Materials License from the State of Colorado for the proposed Pinon Ridge Uranium and Vanadium Mill in March 2011. The mill will be the first uranium mill constructed in the United States in over 30 years.

With about 61,000 acres of highly prospective uranium and vanadium properties located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, and New Mexico, as well as exploration properties in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin totaling approximately 32,000 additional acres, the Company has a full pipeline of additional development prospects. Energy Fuels, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, has assembled this property portfolio along with a first class management team, including highly skilled technical mining and milling professionals.

On March 1, 2012, Energy Fuels announced an updated Preliminary Feasibility Study for Sheep Mountain. The study contemplates the concurrent development of the underground and open pit deposits for a 15 year mine life. This option generates a pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 42% and a Net Present Value (NPV) of US$201 million, at a 7% discount rate and a $65/lb long term U3O8 price. This option has an expected initial CAPEX requirement of US$109 million and OPEX of US$32.31 per lb. recovered. The Sheep Mountain project is currently at an advanced stage of permitting. Production is expected to commence in 2015, with a peak production rate of 1.5 million lbs U3O8 per year.

The Sheep Mountain Project contains an Indicated Resource of 12,895,000 tons at an average grade of 0.12% eU3O8 (30,285,000 lbs eU3O8). This figure includes Probable Reserves of 7,453,000 tons at an average grade of 0.123% eU3O8 (18,365,000 lbs eU3O8). Energy Fuels' Colorado Plateau properties additionally contain Measured & Indicated Resources of 1,951,486 tons at an average grade of 0.24% eU3O8 and 0.89% V2O5 (9,371,821 lbs eU3O8 and 34,862,116 lbs V2O5).

The technical information in this news release regarding the Sheep Mountain Project was prepared in accordance with the Canadian regulatory requirements set out in NI 43-101 and is extracted from Preliminary Feasibility Study for Sheep Mountain dated April 13, 2012 which is filed on EFR's SEDAR profile and is available for viewing at www.sedar.com .

Stephen P. Antony, President and CEO of Energy Fuels, is Energy Fuels' Qualified Person (as defined by National Instrument 43-101) for uranium projects and is responsible for the technical information related to EFR's assets contained in this release.

Denison's U.S. Mining Division

All of Denison's U.S. assets are held directly or indirectly through its wholly-owned subsidiary Denison Mines Holdings Corp. ("DMH"). DMH holds its uranium mining and milling assets through subsidiaries, as follows:




-- the White Mesa Mill, a 2,000-ton per day uranium and vanadium processing
plant near Blanding, Utah through Denison White Mesa LLC;
-- the Colorado Plateau mines, straddling the Colorado and Utah border,
through Denison Colorado Plateau LLC;
-- the Daneros uranium mine in the White Canyon district of southeastern
Utah, and other exploration properties through Utah Energy Corporation;
-- the Arizona Strip properties through Denison Arizona Strip LLC;
-- the Henry Mountains uranium complex in southern Utah and other
exploration properties through Denison Henry Mountains LLC; and
-- miscellaneous properties through Denison Properties LLC.




All of the U.S. properties are operated by Denison Mines (USA) Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DMH.

Denison's White Mesa Mill in Utah is the only conventional uranium mill currently operating in the U.S. It is fully licensed and permitted to process 2,000 tons per day, producing up to 8 million lbs of uranium per year. A vanadium co-product recovery circuit allows for the processing of vanadium ore within the Colorado Plateau mines and its central location allows for hauling of uranium ore from Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.

The Arizona Strip has higher grade production from breccia pipes. The Arizona 1 mine is currently producing with a track-record of resource replacement. A second mine (Pinenut) is expected to open in 2012. Shaft sinking is expected to begin at the Canyon mine in the fourth quarter 2012, pending regulatory approval, and the EZ1 & EZ2 properties are progressing through permitting.

The Henry Mountains Complex in Utah consists of the Bullfrog and Tony M deposits and represents Denison's largest resource in the U.S. (12.8 million lbs Indicated Resources, 8.1 million lbs Inferred Resources). Currently the complex is on care and maintenance. It was fully permitted in September 2007 and has excellent infrastructure, access, and is production ready. Haulage to the mill is along County and State highways.

The technical information in this news release regarding the Henry Mountains Complex was prepared in accordance with the Canadian regulatory requirements set out in NI 43-101 and is extracted from the technical reports prepared for DML titled "Technical Report on the Tony M-Southwest Deposit, Henry Mountains Complex, Utah, USA" dated March 19, 2009, and "Technical Report on the Henry Mountains Complex Uranium Project, Utah, U.S.A." dated October 17, 2006, which are filed on Denison's SEDAR profile and are available for viewing at www.sedar.com .

Ron Hochstein, President and CEO for Denison, is Denison's Qualified Person (as defined by National Instrument 43-101) for uranium projects and is responsible for the technical information related to Denison's U.S. Mining Division contained in this release.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain information contained in this news release, including any information relating to the proposed Transaction between Energy Fuels and Denison, the benefits and synergies of the Transaction, future opportunities for the combined company and any other statements regarding Energy Fuels' and Denison's future expectations, beliefs, goals or prospects constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities legislation (collectively, "forward-looking statements"). All statements in this news release that are not statements of historical fact (including statements containing the words "expects", "does not expect", "plans", "anticipates", "does not anticipate", "believes", "intends", "estimates", "estimates", "projects", "potential", "scheduled", "forecast", "budget" and similar expressions) should be considered forward-looking statements. All such forward-looking statements are subject to important risk factors and uncertainties, many of which are beyond Energy Fuels' and Denison's ability to control or predict. A number of important factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those indicated or implied by such forward-looking statements, including without limitation: the parties' ability to consummate the Transaction; the conditions to the completion of the Transaction, including the receipt of shareholder approval, court approval or the regulatory approvals required for the Transaction may not be obtained on the terms expected or on the anticipated schedule; the ability of the parties to agree to terms on the definitive agreements relating to the Transaction; the parties' ability to meet expectations regarding the timing, completion and accounting and tax treatments of the Transaction; the volatility of the international marketplace; and other risk factors as described in Energy Fuels' and Denison's most recent annual information forms and annual and quarterly financial reports.

Energy Fuels and Denison assume no obligation to update the information in this communication, except as otherwise required by law. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties is contained in Energy Fuels' and Denison's respective filings with the various provincial securities commissions which are available online at www.sedar.com . Forward-looking statements are provided for the purpose of providing information about the current expectations, beliefs and plans of the management of each of Energy Fuels and Denison relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that such statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. Readers are also cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, that speak only as of the date hereof.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING TECHNICAL DISCLOSURE

This news release and the information contained herein does not constitute an offer of securities for sale in the United Sates and securities may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or exemption from registration. The terms "Inferred Resources", "Indicated Resources", "Measured Resources", "Mineral Resources" and "Probable Reserves" used in this news release are Canadian mining terms as defined in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects under the guidelines set out in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the "CIM") Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (the "CIM Standards"). The CIM Standards differ significantly from standards in the United States. While the terms "Mineral Resources", Measured Resources", "Indicated Resources", "Inferred Resources" and "Probable Reserves" are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, they are not defined terms under standards in the United States. "Inferred Resources" have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian securities laws, estimates of Inferred Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or other economic studies. Readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Resources or Probable Reserves will ever be converted into reserves. Readers are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an Inferred Resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable. Accordingly, information regarding resources and reserves contained or referenced in this news release containing descriptions of our mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar information made public by United States companies.

This news release and the information contained herein does not constitute an offer of securities for sale in the United Sates. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from such registration requirements.




Contacts:
Energy Fuels Inc.
Stephen P. Antony
President & CEO
(303) 974-2140
s.antony@energyfuels.com

www.energyfuels.com
Denison Mines Corp.
Ron Hochstein
President & CEO
(416) 979-1991 x232
rhochstein@denisonmines.com

www.denisonmines.com




SOURCE: Denison Mines Corp. and Energy Fuels Inc.



mailto:s.antony@energyfuels.com

http://www.energyfuels.com mailto:rhochstein@denisonmines.com

http://www.denisonmines.com


Copyright 2012 Marketwire, Inc., All rights reserved.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/energy-fuels-inc-and-denison-mines-corp-announce-transaction-to-create-leading-us-uranium-company-2012-04-16

chillypepper, who are you? You have absolutely no grasp of the English language. Yet, you follow along with all posts. You are not what you seem. I'm calling you out pal.

You're either unfamiliar with the English language, or 5 yrs. old. Either way, you should stifle it.

Thanks for the update.

I doubt that was the reason with Xkem. This thing won't move without news anymore, or a possibility of good things in the works. This company is widely known on Ihub, and 80 million bought won't do a damn thing. If somebody was trying, it was an extremely feeble attempt.

absolutely Raven, raise hell

Are you really an idiot, or is it just an act? Either way, you're worthless.

Also,

upcoming court date:

http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/m/Judge/Schmetterer/Court_Calendar_Loader_m.cfm?file=0917A339_m.htm

Not related to today's volume, but found this. Politics, perfect field for this idiot:

http://iretioniyide.com/ireti_achievement.html