Member Info for Dave85

1/3

Still not had chance to investigate bvi rules on this but thought I would clarify my concerns of my previous post.

To my mind the consolidation really should not change the appeal of the sp in and of itself. It's the mcap that matters.

However in combination with the articles change and in particular the article 10 change, the fact that large accrued salary is unpaid on the balance sheet and the issuable share max remains at pre consolidation 5b instead of having been reduced 1000:1, becoming 5m. It seems highly significant.

This changes the sp minimum (diluted fully to max allowed issue) from being, say for 2m mcap.

2,000,000/5,000,000,000 = 0.0004gbp

Which in comparison to a pre consolidation sp of 0.00256gbp

Would have been

0.00256/0.0004 or a 6.4 fold decrease or a loss of around 84%.

But now potentially with an equivalent consolidated sp if 2.56gbp and <800k issued shares. The minimum sp stays the same ie 0.0004 but from the starting sp of 2.56 the potential loss via dilution without mcap increase, increases to

2.56/0.0004 or a 6400 fold decrease or a loss of 99.984%.

Aimo

20 minutes or so after the best and most significant news that has been released since I first bought into aura and this buy was my cheapest in absolute terms yet, meaning (in light of today's derisking news) by far my best value buy imo to date.

Just shows how unpopular buying on aim is at the mo.

Aimo atb

Exploitation license in the bag - happy days. This is the one I was looking for. Highly significant hurdle overcome. It's a whopper of a salary but fair do's if his teams delivery continues in this vein. Sp can double or half today and it won't change my thoughts. Tiris is looking more and more like a producing uranium mine that is actually going to happen not just get talked about and traded over. It's not the biggest and it's not the cheapest opex or highest grade or best jurisdiction but if it actually happens and in short order it will be one of the very very few that does so and makes cash flow. If coincident with a U bull market, history shows how capital piles into these few so much more than the rest and that is when the sp should be an absolute pleasure to follow. Holding long here, very much like where this is going.

Aimo atb

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-tiris-uranium-project-exploitation-license-granted.4581561/?post_id=36892981

4/4

Why make this change if you dont expect to utilise the mechanism to which it pertains?

The companies act 2006 is actually inline with what's proposed

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/17/chapter/9/crossheading/variation-of-class-rights
Section 630

"(4)The consent required for the purposes of this section on the part of the members of a class is—

(a)consent in writing from at least three-quarters of the members of the class, or

(b)a special resolution passed at a separate general meeting of the members of that class sanctioning the variation."

Section 633 then, however, gives possible protection and describes how an opposing 15% of holders can apply to the courts to prevent the change.

But we know bvi act applies to uru.

Will be investigating further.

Out of time for now busy weekend ahead.

Usual caveats of I may of misunderstood, im no expert in this, correction welcome and

Aimo ATB.

3/4

(b) a resolution consented to in writing by Shareholders together holding 75% or more of the votes of Shares entitled to vote thereon"

My understanding - Under the proposed articles the differential dilution route imo becomes more achievable as only a minimum of 75% agreement of a minimum of 33% presence at a valid meeting is required (<25% of motivated voting rights overall) & although any holder, who stands to be diluted/have their share's rights changed, can request a poll. If you ain't at the meeting (in person or by proxy) you don't get a vote in the poll. Basically this change has introduced the (a) method (outlined above in terms of a special resolution) as a means of passing a special resolution, which remains a requirement to differential dilution (a potential outcome of - variation of class rights).

Generally only had a quick look at these article for now as I'm under the weather (only partially self inflicted) and busy. But just thought I'd draw attention and record my initial thoughts/aggregate info in a post for ease of access.

In the context of the article changes in general being referred to / sold as making the company more accountable to shareholders.

I maybe being over cynical but this is exactly the area of change I was on the look out for as I posted 13/11/18 whilst not introducing a 'new type' it seems to me to make that introduction easier / more likely.

Aimo

2/4

Internet definitions.....

mutatis mutandis - (used when comparing two or more cases or situations) making necessary alterations while not affecting the main point at issue.

quorum - A quorum is the minimum number of members that must be present at a meeting. A meeting of an organisation cannot take place unless the required quorum is in attendance. If the Constitution of the organisation sets out what a quorum is then clearly that will apply.

Poll - A procedure used at a general meeting of a company under which every ordinary shareholder present in person or by proxy has one vote for every ordinary share held. ... It is common for the articles of association to specify who has the right to demand a poll.

Proposed articles definition.....

Special resolution - "“Special Resolution of Shareholders” means either:

(a) a resolution approved at a duly convened and constituted meeting of the
Shareholders by the affirmative vote of a majority of 75% or more of the votes of
the Shares entitled to vote thereon in respect of which the Shareholders holding
the Shares were present in person or by proxy at the meeting and being Shares in
respect of which the votes were voted; or

Aimo

1/4

Existing articles

http://www.urumetals.com/media/82903/URU-Metals-Memorandum-and-Articles-of-Association-STAMPED.PDF

"VARIATION OF CLASS RIGHTS

10. If at any time, there are different classes or series of Shares in issue, unless otherwise provided by the terms of issue of the Shares of that class or series, the rights attaching to any such class or series of Shares may, whether or not the Company is being wound up, be varied with the consent in writing of the holders of not less than three-fourths of the issued Shares of that class or series and of the holders of not less than three-fourths of the issued Shares of any other class or series of Shares which may be adversely affected by such variation."

My understanding - So if they ever issued a new class of share and wanted to screw over holders of the original class of shares my differential dilution, they previously needed written consent of 75% of any affected class of share.

Proposed articles

http://www.urumetals.com/investor-relations/circulars-and-publications/uru-memorandum-and-articles-proposed-2019

"VARIATION OF CLASS RIGHTS

10. If at any time, there are different classes or series of Shares in issue, unless otherwise provided by the terms of issue of the Shares of that class or series, the rights attaching to any such class or series of Shares may, whether or not the Company is being wound up, be varied by a Special Resolution of Shareholders in person or by proxy at a meeting of the holders of the shares of that class.

To every such meeting, the provisions of the Articles relating to meetings of the Company shall mutatis mutandis apply, but so that the necessary quorum shall be at least one person holding or representing by proxy at least one-third of the issued shares of the relevant class and that any holder of shares of such class present in person or by proxy may demand a poll."

Aimo

Just a bad spell generally and may get much worse before it gets better. Aim serves a much needed purpose and that need will continue.

On top of the need there is the inescapable fact that it is used by so many (relatively few but still many) people to make so much money from the punting masses. Can't afford to retire, I know I'll double my pension. Doesn't often work out that way tho. The relative few often powerful/influentual (in respect to aim) will continue to milk cohort after cohort as long as the human propensity towards risk based gratification endures. Rule/regs may change and tighten and margins/ease of profit may wane in a climate of margibally increasing risk of prosecution. But where there's a will there's a way. People like to gamble and a bookies like to collect.

Within the melee especially at times like this for the well researched patient and controlled genuine opportunity exists. Realisation in the long term can be few and far between but when found has the ability to correct multiple mistakes elsewhere. Lower shorter gains is how the best and dirtiest do their thing and allows much greater consistency without stressful protracted exposure. This however is how the relative few operate and is far far beyond the ability or even comprehension of most, me definitely included.

Everyone likely thinks their in the few who will win at aim but the absolute fact is the maths proove that the few milk the many. I don't see aim dying out. Similar likely crossed people minds in 98 and 02 and 08. Many a fortune made and aim success story helping the UK economy since each if those times. Obviously these are the minority but how many companies have floated on aim where not even one individual at least doubled their money at some point?

If you place a bet on the horses and it doesn't pay off. Your money is gone. If you place a bet on aim and it doesn't pay off. In the majority of incidences options still exist for you to turn a loss into a gain, or at least realise a partial rather than total loss. To counter that when u win at the horses you get money in your hand and the decision to regamble is much more delineated.

However I know which I prefer.

Just some personal recognition of what I'm involved in - aim.

Good weekend to all.

Aimo atb

Implementation guidelines due within 2 months of 27/09/18 so overdue then. Expected soon. Good read for a refresher.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=80fa71fa-6dc3-4f05-b78d-04679663f7a2

Couldn't help notice 2nd half of the article and have a Google for a laugh. Dagga dagga dagga.

https://www.businessinsider.co.za/cannabis-business-boom-for-hydroponics-suppliers-and-dagga-exhibition-2018-12

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/mining/2018-11-29-anglo-ceo-mark-cutifani-urges-sense-in-land-reform-debate/

This has been on going for a while now and I've expressed my views on it before. Essentially it doesn't make much sense to put 6 months work into improving investor certainty with regards to mining charter & mprda only to go and trump any perceived gains with this (as it has the potential to become) overwhelming negative. I remember reading cr describing his intention to bring this in, in a manner sensitive to investment as to not harm the countries attractiveness, I don't envisage this aim has changed.

Been working in sunny yeovil all day so just seen this news, happy days, we got our own significant dose of certainty improvement this morning. Soooo many questions remain however.

Hard for me to image 2019 being as a bad as 2018 here. I think I've heard Rick rule say something along the lines of..... equity prices move to the upside mainly as a result of out performance to the positive, relative to prevailing expectation.

With current sentiment, hopefully in 2019 it will be hard for uru to underperform relative to apparent market expectation (based on volume upon today's renewal). Great timing on the buy today would be well deserved if that proved to be the cheapest buy going forward. Hope it does - we will see.

Bargains all over at the mo, need to make some money.... to risk on aim.... hmmm sounds unwise. To me tho it's a lot wiser than buying when everythings rosey, pay day soon anyway decisions decisions.

When I look at a lot of sp charts, late 2015 early 2016 is a common low and a splurge at that time would relatively frequently have done well, may be in another couple of years I'll look back at November/December 2018 in a similar way. Again I hope so. Just a message to my future self looking back to figure out what on earth I was thinking.

Aimo atb

3/3

The article concludes….
A ‘In the studied shale, 88.11% of the vanadium was contained in aluminosilicate minerals, which are difficult to extract. However, vanadium recovery can be enhanced using the SABL process. The sulfuric acid diffused into the shale and was then concentrated by water evaporation at 200C. The dehydroxylation of muscovite was accelerated in the anhydrous system; meanwhile, K, Al and V in the muscovite were sulfated by reaction with active [SO4 2], releasing the vanadium. Hence, the vanadium was efficiently extracted from shale using the SABL process, which does not require the use of fluorides, minimizing fluoride pollution and wastewater. On the basis of the phase transformations, a reaction scheme for muscovite decomposition, which is closely related to vanadium extraction, was proposed. Furthermore, the thermodynamic analysis showed that the muscovite can be more easily destroyed in the SABL process than in the sulfuric acid leaching process in aqueous solutions.’

A ‘Various effective factors were systematically studied and the experimental results showed that 90.1% vanadium could be leached from the shale’

I know doing it in the lab is completely different to doing it at a mine or even at a lab at scale but reading this it certainly came over as positive and shows the potential of very good recoveries of vanadium in low grade shale deposits. SS will be a good read, I wonder if some consideration of this SABL technique will come in at some level of study/feasibility. Capex reduction seems a possibility as compared to PAL and my reading I mentioned in my 01/06/18 post here with very similar and high recovery rates.

New website looks great btw only had a quick look so far.

AIMO ATB

2/3

A 'PAL process requires large capital investment, which limits its industrial applications. Therefore, the sulfuric acid baking– leaching (SABL) process was proposed to extract vanadium from shale,14 which has advantages of high extraction efficiency, short processing times and no fluoride addition.’

A ‘The shale used here was obtained from Teng-da Mining’ ‘China. The chemical composition of the shale as determined’ ‘from the x-ray diffraction’ ‘were quartz, muscovite, pyrite, and calcite. The chemical phases of the vanadium in the shale were analyzed’ ‘The results showed that 88.11%, 10.03% and 1.86% of the total vanadium existed in silicate minerals, organic matter, and free oxide, respectively.’

This shows that the vast majority of the Vanadium in the mica in the sample used in the article was successfully extracted. Aura have said about 40% of the Haggan samples investigated were mica minerals (https://www.vanadisbm.com/project) and that the mica is where the vanadium is contained.

A ‘Anhydrite peaks were observed in Fig. 2a after baking with a sulfuric acid dosage of 15 wt.% while the calcite peaks completely disappeared, indicating that calcite can be easily converted into anhydrite in the presence of a small amount of sulfuric acid. In this case, only 13.6% vanadium leaching efficiency was obtained as the sulfuric acid reacted primarily with calcite in the shale and very little vanadium occurred in calcite phase’

RNS ‘ Evaluation of beneficiation by flotation of mica minerals and rejection of calcite at ALS Laboratories, Burnie Tasmania. This work demonstrated best preliminary results of 83% of vanadium could be recovered to 64% of total mass, resulting in a beneficiation factor of 1.3 times (sample: DDH022). Additionally, rejection of 80% of calcite was achieved in this preliminary work (sample: DDH022). This calcite rejection will reduce acid consumption and operating costs.’

AIMO ATB

1/3

Just read and wanted to point out this article. Found it very interesting and likely apt for Haggan, its well worth a full read but Ive included a few excerpts.

Article link

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322321004_Vanadium_Extraction_from_Shale_via_Sulfuric_Acid_Baking_and_Leaching/download

Excerpts from A (linked article) & RNS (RNS 25/10/18 link below)

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=AURA&ArticleCode=t070fy89&ArticleHeadline=Haggan_Vanadium_Project_scoping_study_update

The numbers in the article excerpts are references at the end of the article.

A 'shale is another important vanadium-bearing primary resource in China.1,5 Vanadium exists primarily as trivalent vanadium (V(III)) in shale'

A 'V(III) is the most difficult to extract as it readily replaces Al(III) from the dioctahedral structure as an isomorphism of muscovite or illite.'

This is what we have at Haggan. The V(III) has partially replaced the Al in muscovite to give roscoelite (K(V3+, Al, Mg)2AlSi3O10(OH)2). To my limited understanding anyway.

Just compare the chemical symbol with that given in the linked article for pure muscovite (KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2) its very similar but with V(III) and maybe some magnesium. To me this suggests the results discussed in the article are potentially and likely relevant to the material at Haggan.

RNS ‘Vanadium deportment was characterised and shown to be present in the V(III) valence state, hosted in the mica mineral roscoelite (K(V3+, Al, Mg)2AlSi3O10(OH)2)’

A 'Following the now obsolete technique of salt roasting-water leaching, acid leaching technologies, including roasting- acid leaching (RAL), direct acid leaching (DAL), and pressure acid leaching (PAL) have been adopted to extract vanadium from shale in the past decade.7–11 RAL and DAL are inefficient for vanadium extraction from the crystal lattice of the aluminosilicate minerals unless high amounts of acid are used, and, in most cases, fluorides (CaF2 and HF) are added to enhance vanadium extraction from shale'.

This creates lots of contaminated water which is expensive to clean.

RNS ‘Oxalate salt roast with acid leach tests showed up to 59% vanadium recovery. Calcination with acid leach showed up to 32% vanadium recovery. Acid pressure leach showed up to 61% vanadium recovery on fresh ore material that had not been subjected to any beneficiation.’

Aura have expressed in the past PAL was the preferred technique.

AIMO ATB

Very limited time king I'm afraid and not too good on this side of things. Appreciate your posts as always. My very quick thoughts...

Looking at website they still had 15% on 21 Nov and we know for a fact that has not been exchanged on aim since unless some huge delayed sell appears next week? Note they don't have a * next to their holding.

IF they have sold then it is likely off market and the value achieved cannot therefore be called fair market - is this a fair statement.. I dunno.

The change of accounting outlined didn't seem to reclassify their uru investment as far as how they should show it on their balance sheet however the matching value appears in newest accounts beside an entry named - reclassified??

Could this asset (which was transferred from ccc subsiduary niketo - pre sale of niketo - for what reason - to ccc) have been transferred again. And if so why and where. Have these accounting changes (which have suddenly been retrospectively adopted) been used to muddy things while uru was shifted. If so why.

We know ccc want to be just cannabis. So a shift makes sense. It really doesn't theoretically affect uru if ccc's uru holding has shifted or the price at which it occurred as long as the powers that be have kept a hold in someway - it shows they see value.

My inkling is that they haven't sold and this is some kind of accounting obscurity (at least to my layman's eye) because I would think a sale would require a section of text explicitly stating a sale has taken place and a value achieved even if that value was nil or even negative. This is what they did for niketo sale. This level of detail may not been required for these condensed accounts and may become clearer with later releases?

Basically I'm clearly no accoutant and I don't know, especially at a glance which is what I'm limited to today. Generally tho I just can't see these guys selling out at a loss - especially now with all we know regards to Ni and SA and Zeb results of late.

Liked cutifani's reaction on SA mining investment, would/will be more significant if/when a company whose not already in so deep says something positive tho and puts money behind their statements.

Aimo just thoughts and musings/blind guesswork atb

Although demand is increasing. Presently the increase is relatively small. General consensus is that very significant demand increase will be seen in next few years which will have greater price effect. Mainly the demand/price connection/interaction is greatly insulated by the remaining large stockpiles. Although stockpile have come down a lot in 12 months historically they are still very high. Any demand increase is catered for in stockpile drawdown greatly dampening any price effect. Once stockpile gets below 140k imo this insulating effect is reduced and price increases and spikes due to demand increases have much higher probability of occurrence (at least based on what's happened before - since 2006). Current market sentiment linked to trade war, questions of China etc also have a strong bearing on the price. I'm confident the price increase we need will happen, the timing is hard predict as many moving parts have influence, I think 2019. The main things is factors exist that strongly indicate demand increase into the near future so half of the equation looks a pretty good bet the other half (supply reduction) is coming into play slowly but surely and imv is a matter of when not if so patience is key. The state of uru at the time when this dynamic plays out is key for us shareholders and that is something I won't attempt to predict.

Aimo atb

Have not commented on here for a good while (since 3p was breached). I continue to be happy with the results, both timeliness and contents and didn't sell any on the rise. With the near term prospect of Co production in combination with glencore U issue, a bit of luck and a lot of good work is close to coming together here. Drilling results look very good to me, and pace of progress impressive. Sp is what it is, looks a bargain again in my eyes.

Big players have made big claims and targets for evs and they need Co from somewhere, puts arcm in a great situation in my book.

Aimo glah

Btw in my view millionaires still want more money rather than less. Also my post yesterday missed out the fact the consolidation announcement was timed for release on top of the factors I mentioned yesterday, also to be on the day prior to crunch day on brexit. Another coincidence?

Aimo atb

Ofd my point mainly was that, some of the holders who we know to have taken this action was included in the 12% who implied their support for egm and stated their holding publically with exclusion of Khan and king from memory (nothing meant by that btw just my recollection of facts apologies if mistaken).

Imo successful calling of egm would have been more powerful compared to contacts you've outlined as some only take action upon evidence of rule breaking, others can ignore at will until rules stipulate otherwise. Egm resolution enactment is possible on mere shareholder preference.

Zorbas isn't daft and will likely play by the rules whilst ignoring the spirit of the rules in the extreme - at least it sometimes seems so.

It is the large % percentage of unknown shareholding that I'm highlighting and their inaction. The egm tally obviously had some draw as more than one previous non poster appeared from nowhere with support and multimillion strong holdings.

In hindsight the egm tally provided mgmt with a likely indication of motivated shareholding % and may have provided reassurance that they can act with some confidence that proposed actions will pass unchallenged.

Aimo atb

Egm can in theory be called by us PIs but we need to collectively have 30% of shares and all be behind a common proposed resolution to prevent consolidation. However the timing planned in the rns and the timing described in relation to calling an egm (within uru articles) means that it is unquestionably too late to do it now to prevent the consolidation occurring.

So no we can't.

Interestingly tho. 30% isn't such a high number looking at the major holding in aggregate especially now we know minex are gone. As I've said before. Where are the shares held, why don't/haven't the holders apparently shared our own concerns re sp decent, delays, silences etc, why haven't they reached out on social media to gain traction for proactive action to improve their own situation. We managed 12%. So 88% is held by either majors or entities that fit into the above category, and are individuals who either had a hand in deciding to consolidate or who don't care enough about the issue to attempt capital protection or are happy to go along with how the company is/has been progressing lately and for the consolidation to go ahead.

My point being whatever the deleterious effect of the consolidation is applies to current holders, most of which are unknown to us or are personally complicit in the decision to carry it out.

Why? I don't know

Odd is definitely the word tho, and I'm interested to see this through and hopeful find out the answer, good or bad.

Aimo atb

Certainly not because they couldn't dilute as thing stand, articles allow for billions (5 from memory) to be issued. Don't think I've been involved in a consolidation at such a low existing issue before. Sp isn't really that low - seen many much lower at any rate that trade for years without consolidation. Will be very interested to read what changes are soon to be made to the articles. What ever they've announced today affects them as much as us. As long as new articles don't introduce a new 'type of share' mgmt remain aligned.

Agree that consolidation normally doesn't work out too well at least short term but in what context (possible accompanying news) will this one play out? <800000 shares in co after this is vv low. I've considered over the past year that it is likely, due to price action, that the total number of different shareholders will have been reducing. If mgmt was motivated to this end why would that be, this (fairly hefty consolidation) maximises co (mgmt) collection of shares. Why?

Just my thoughts.

Interesting times.

Aimo atb

Rereading that, it is worded badly I mean more that, out of whatever material is present it's more likely that viability of extracting any of/a greater proportion of it exists now and likely in to the future in comparison to when he made and the year leading up to his original comment.

Aimo atb