Member Info for Dave85

Pump the sp not the so

Posted on xtr bb, may have relevance here

"Also of note I have, over the weekend, seen firm letters to clients of Beaufort informing them their cash and existing portfolios will be available through Share Centre this week, meaning they can buy and sell stock for the 1st time since March."

Courtesy of hawaiifive0

Btw AD in April 17 momentous presentation talked about valuable Ferro vanadium credits in the magnitude and compared there value as being compatible with gold whilst the comparison imo remains ridiculous any value such material that can be viably produced (total unknown for now) is now worth considerably more given the current vanadium climate. If nothing else may be an angle the BoD take to pump up the so. Seriously tho I've said before how it would be interesting to have some quantification of vanadium content in the >150mt of magatite sitting above the No @ Zeb.

Back at work now for the winter for me so even less time to post.

Aimo ATB

Happy with that!

Totally agree would have been nicer to have had this or similar weeks ago but nevertheless very reassuring. Many thanks to all who emailed and for continued posted research etc especially to king. Not a done deal yet, but far better having license specifically discussed rather than having to infer from continued exploration.

After all, any concerns we had were surely justified based on the 'at surface' once renewable feature of prospecting licenses according to the legislation. Obviously in practise things work somewhat differently.

Back to accumulate when I can for me. This now (especially once renewal confirmed) looks obscenly cheap imv since I remember thinking back at 0.74 how cheap it was and things have only got better.

Aimo ATB

IPO - October, and for that matter 2018, looking much less likely.

Very promising recoveries from froth floatation. Both vanadium recovery and acid chomping calc exclusion, no word on the nickel and mang recoveries yet (lower system priority towards them tho, so understandable at this stage).

Resource 'sure up' from inferred to measured and indicated underway and is pre scoping study financials publication requirement - not new news that last bit.

Drilling in a swamp generally much easier and faster when the swamp is frozen.

Reassuring statement that IPO preference is after ss release to optimise value, even tho this causes delay.

Realistically IPO still doable within 6 months or so (likely h1 2019) if IPO is still the route they take? How much vanadium supply can realistically come on by then? That is the only significant way towards any lasting curb to pace of v price rise/stabilising/dropping of price? Not much, is my guess. Positive vanadium market likely stretches out many years from here. Great time for producers and to lesser extent near term producers. Tiris now entering v spotlight to greater degree and the first vanadium production that aura is responsible for may come from tiris - testing/studying/ analysis etc to do before that tho.

A 6 monthish delay isn't going to hurt IPO value imo (if that ends up being the revised timing). On the other hand a positive, publicly available ss combined with known measured and indicated resource is highly likely to help IPO value. A delay is a delay and whilst I don't feel IPO value will be hit, sp is an entirely different matter.

Resolution 5 remains on my mind and the timing of the decision on price of issued capital. Todays news increases my attention towards this point.

Note in RNS of other underway corporate initiatives still being completed possibly within 2018 - for me - it is unclear to what this relates.

No chance I'm going to be put off by a delay. Will get more if I can average down - funds permitting.

Hopefully clearer picture on a number of fronts after agm.

Overall remain extremely positive here in the all but shortest of timescales.

AIMO GLA

Aisi. In the main, peoples expressed views of uru appear (through reading social media at least) to be split between 2 camps.

1. Those who express the belief deposit/s with zero hope of ever being economic - of future value to shareholders (at any future Ni price - an unknown) have been and are being opportunely leveraged to the benefit of the lths and directors.

2. Those who I express the belief directors are building, whilst minimising dilution (other than that resulting from their own investment), deposits/assets that, at some stage in the future, are likely to prove of great value due to increasing Ni price and ensuing project/s viability.

My initial investment wasn't overly influenced by the cascading positivity over mgmt (which peaked at sp highs) & my existing holding isn't currently wavering amidst abounding claims to the absolute polar opposite (which may be coming to a peak at potential sp lows).

I'm in camp 2. However dodgy things have been - standing back, the funds raised at 4.5 didn't come from me, were raised at multiples to my av (even at the time), secured a great (when all things taken into account but disguised to most) deal for the mrs stake, and have progressed the co's potential value in the ground through successful exploration.

Even if your in camp 1 it must be apparent that the leveraging towards co value accretion has been successful as the resulting mrs stake has tangible and more unambiguous value (relative to a resource deposit) - surely to the benefit of shareholders relative to is absence.

The license and dilution are my current concerns & the penultimate paragraph of my 2nd 08/07/18 post.

Ultimately only one of us has crystallised a financial loss here. My reasons for buying at each point have primarily been the existing assets combined with macro environment outlook rather than mgmts claims around lithium/acid leaching/magnetite developments so I guess I see less reduction in value/delayed/lost value increase than many (not suggesting this refers to you) since my buy ins. I've scaled my exposure relative to value I saw at the time (currently around 52% down) I've so far come across two significant mistakes - I thought narke still had value to uru & I was unaware SA prospecting licenses could only be renewed once. However, now having realised the truth on these matters in combination with other developments I don't regret any particular purchase.

Having said all that, your caution is very understandable. Writing this has provided me a welcome distraction on a difficult morning - thanks for your thoughts and good luck to you.

Aimo ATB

Dabbler, I hope so to. Your decision to evac here has proven, so far and in hindsight, very sound.

By 'we' I was meaning posters on this bb really. It was late 2016 when I bought my first stake and after the dilutions you mention.

In a selfish way, the type of dilution of a particular stocks shareholders that most concerns (negatively) me is that which meets, of the following criteria.....

1. Takes place after I have purchased the stock (dilutive to me).
2. Below (or the equivalent of below - when considering said dilution) my average purchase price.
3. Not in my view value accretive.

.....1 as well as, 2 and/or 3.

I guess lths holdings since before many of us had heard of uru, have been to date diluted quite significantly (eg ~70% from pre 30/10/15 placing and ~58% since). Depending on the av of these holders (they had the opportunity to buy in the 0.2p -0.3p levels - so scope for averaging down) the placings and subsequent positive sentiment (driven by the narrative of an awaking monster project from lengthy hibernation) allowed them the opportunity to sell at over 1100% above the lows. Chance was therefore likely available to sell at prices likely capable of realising a positive roi even after 70% dilution (which was less at that stage). I would not, in all cases call 70% oblivion, yet it's certainly significant.

The key to the above imv is timing and averaging down. The guys on the inside here have bought recently (2015 - now) large amounts either directly or indirectly above current 0.3s sp levels (0.4 -0.45 mainly but also 2p and 4.5p).

Dilution imv is all relative and can be positive - if funds raised as a result provide the key to realisation of greater value in the long run. G&A expenses however are not going to do that. This project has been carried through bad times with (relatively) minimal dilution. Most dilution has been used for funds to advance the project - however slowly, or to add a new dimension to value at uru - mrs, rather than G&A.

Yes directors maximised holdings near lows and who knows what dealings have gone on, I won't speculate but acknowledge possibilities and motives. After all they are among the lths discussed above and have suffered the dilution you mention.

Aimo

Feeling like I've both dodged some bullets and missed some boats recently.

Bky gwmo and ars bullets and wuc and rnc boats (aimG even gave me a heads up on rnc) reason for all - mainly lack of funds.

Called some right tho - wlfe nearly bought around 2p and would not of sold at 3p etc week or so later.

Apologies for mentions of other stocks but my point is I don't feel either way with uru - not because Ive money here but because sudden & or extreme news / macro developments have not occurred (it's been a piecemeal grinding and gradual fade after an optimised & cleverly accentuated bounce if anything). In this age of fake news & macro perception jumpiness (trump exacerbated) fundamentals & extreme long term asymmetric risk reward is what I think I'll stick to. More interesting hobby than 5,10% here or there on less risky large caps anyway, even if it returns me less/losses me more overall - not a professional after all.

We've had indications that license concerns are likely less impending than it appears on the surface (logical conclusion from q4 & onward planned exploration and total lack of acknowledgement of any related deadline/issue). Any one project can face make or break moments, one of the reasons I prefer shares with more than one project, then even if the worst happens to one, there remains at least a glimmer of future value. Again Lucky I spectated at wti flooding issues this year.

The higher the MCap the higher the risk. At our levels, downside (whilst total loss remains possible) is relatively limited in likelihood & imo the risk reward balance is far superior to many others out there. Down here our principle risks are license loss & dilution - hard to argue anything else isn't priced accordingly imo.

We are not getting diluted to oblivion (so far), IF license is sorted we have had a landslide of good news relative to bad both inside & outside the co. A significant time in demand for nickel is approaching near term. The negatives are the pace & the sp but imv these are merely perspectives of expectation & in many respects an opportunity. Also the pace is highly linked to the lack of dilution.

TA wise breaching 200ma isn't at present much of a stretch in terms of required MCap with the current issue of shares, especially if license is sorted. Apparently such a move, if held, is a good sign of a trend change.

JK's 0.3 prediction was a good one, now the prediction is teens. We will see. Positive license news will be a huge reassurance & the opposite - bad times at uru.

License license license ??? Enjoying ofd's countdown. Attention of JZ, or lack there of, won't affect license. Uru are 'employing' UMH for this after all. They are closer, more involved & likely better connected so determination being in their hands by proxy seems preferable.

Until bad news is confirmed I'm staying optimistic, nice to see others feel the same way. Thanks for cont'd research. aimo ATB

It's helped me gdawg kinda hope I can get more if funds become available. I don't have ability to see orders etc but read HC posts on occasion. Lots if useful stuff (from yourself included) and good to have posters with visible holdings.

https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvTDYD4wq9yROZofJ8ke92GA%3D%3D

Lots to digest

Agm 14/11/18

Resolution 5

5 trading days before 14/11/18 (08/11/18) is the earliest date on which the price of which the issue of 10% of existing equity can be agreed upon.

If the 75% vote through is achieved (special resolution requirement) at agm then that day (14/10/18) is the earliest day they can do the 10% placing. The minimum price for the placing (if done on that day) is stated as being 75% of the 15 asx trading day vwap prior to 08/11/18 being 2 days from today 18/10/18.

I'm wondering if this cap/sell wall you mention has something to do with the above points. To me it certainly seems a possibility. To me it makes more sense to place after positive news flow and sp reaction but pi preference isn't generally the prevailing power with such things.

When also considering resolutions 4 (ratification of previous placings) and 5 (ratifications of previous grant of options) it seems that on top of a 10% placing, a potential 15% extra shares are able to be issued within 12 month period with no set minimum price. At least asx price is more stable than that of aim.

Next 12 months likely to see big changes to MCap here. Sp changes less easy to predict. Overall the way the resolutions are worded seems one thing is expected - major change and lots of news and action - I noticed the mention of asset acquisition. Long expected newsflow being a damp squib or delayed another year looking increasingly unlikely.

Hopefully news flow is managed relative to capital raising to achieve minimal dilution for existing shareholders and maximise cash raised for our projects. Exciting times ahead by the looks of it.

To be clear I'm all for value accretive placings just prefer prices to be above/ballpark equal to earlier shareholders av's something that's hopefully achievable given the current extremely promising macro environment. Just a few thoughts on how it reads to me anyway.

Aimo ATB

Slowly slowly but like you say but progress none the less.

The ip program seems to have been successful in that....

They think they have located a contact - ip data varied enough for the interpretation of a delineation of a (as yet not explicitly identified for us - but possibly between the intrusives and the footwall however this was already partially know from historic drills so could be between 0.2/3 Ni and 0.4 Ni with PGE) boundary within the deposit.

The confidence in the interpretation is sufficient to spend more money (not something bod rush to do (except on paper by salary accrual)) on the geochem and diamond drilling and further geophysics along with modelling etc.

The success has prompted a plan to extend the geophysics (technique unspecified as yet but sounds likely to be ip again) both north and south - potential resource expansion - suggests interpreted contact likely remains at extremes of current data.

As suspected, basics provided only, not one actual ip reading to go off and no results from ip of any kind actually released other than words outlining overall outcome and map showing location of transects - is what it is. Results could be highly prospective or barely enough to justify further investigation.

To be fair at least we got an update on the campaign. More than can be said for license issues as people say, although one strongly suggests positive outcome (of some variety) to the other.

We were told ip results due in oct - we received news about them in oct - timeline met!

Time wise, I feel he suspects nickel price is going up next year. He will need millions for pfs if that's where this is going. Mrs stake value likely to increase at some point in next year so potential capital source from that (hint maybe in delayed results). When nickel warehouse levels start to create significant price increase towards 8/lb, imo, market will see zeb and burg in new light. Concurrently he will try to raise sp (has proven ability in this regard).

Imagine how smug he'd feel if he raised substantial amounts at 4.5p (by no means saying this will happen - but it's happened before, that much is undeniable). JV is another potential source of funding for pfs.

As we know the elephant in the room is the license. Inv inv I've read that pattern has occurred pre commodity sector upturn in the past. With the current wider markets high valuations and the ratio to commodity prices, I know where I want my money when the normalisation and the swing the other way really gets going (possible trigger being fiat currency debt troubles?) - a better time to pump sp towards less dilutive placing prices - if that's mgmt preference.

http://www.mining.com/chart-commodity-prices-slump-50-year-low-us-stocks/

China EV sales sept over 90k - up >80% since jan 2018.

Thanks diggit for burg spot hadn't noticed that!

AIMO ATB

Again thanks for the post I have decided to keep a closer eye on news here and have a more detailed look at news released so far myself.

If I myself have misunderstood and or made a mistake, corrections would be appreciated as I'm no expert and always willing to learn.

Aimo ATB

Would recommend those posts twice if I could. Very interesting!

I made a bit off of this on the deal without looking in detail. I don't currently hold any.

Many thanks for the posts and the effort required.

Ageos post, at face value, looks tremendous (I haven't looked into the RNS'/presentations to check figures etc used).

I only post the following in an attempt to help anyone, who maybe unfamiliar, to understand a bit more what Ageos is saying. I'm not suggesting any specific poster doesn't understand. I'm sure many know much more than me.

I haven't researched the company I've only read a few posts incl Ageos'.

In the following, the snow is the rock containing the gold.

Imagine standing on a ski slope on the side of a hill thick with snow. The snow is deeper in patches and similarly thinner elsewhere, in some patches there maybe bare rock sticking out and elsewhere trees cover the slope so you cannot see anything to decide if snow is present or not. It's also foggy so you cannot see the base of the snowy section of hillside until you reach the point where the snow stops.

You decide to try and find the ground beneath the snow where you currently are. The quickest way is not to dig vertically down but to dig at a diagonal, in towards the slope at 90 degees to the hill side beneath the snow. Assuming you do this accurately. The distance you dig is the true thickness. If you did this all over the slope and divided the total distance you dug by the number of holes you completed that would be the average true thickness (12m).

When you ski straight down the slope you are travelling down dip. Ageos suggests (based on data released) the slope is between 125 and 275m in height (the length in metres you skied on snow going top to bottom).

You fall and loose both skis, you need to get out of the way of following skiers. You walk via the shortest route possible to the edge of the slope (walking flat or along an imaginary contour line) - as you walk you are travelling along strike (the length of the slope - 1140m).

If you find that no matter where you choose to begin your run (at any point along the slopes length (strike)) you can always can ski over 100m of snow whilst travelling straight down. Ageos says all the snow you would consider in testing this out contains between 308k and 357k oz. The numbers here come from working backwards through a previous mda resource calculation of the same deposit (the best way to do it).

Some areas of the slope, in the south for example, maybe you can ski for 275m but based on current data they are saying it looks like the rough average distance you can ski straight down the slope on snow for, is 150m.

Only the layer of snow is considered in the calcs - nothing from the ground below or the sky above. Estimate only considers released data on deposit mentioned and acknowledges potential increased ounces from within that deposit along with elsewhere in Anza.

Again thanks for the

Fact is tho that if Vanadis can make a profit at 0.3 then likely so can others and supply will burgeon and price will fall. For this reason these new long term prices are so unknown and speculative. Where will this price equilibrium driven by this supply demand dynamic be reached. Several of the largest deposits are around the same 0.3 area so it could be that oscillation of viability around this level (obviously always driven by cost of production from specific projects but considering hypothetically similar deposits with similar costs) has large consequence of supply and minor deposit specific production costs (or other cost factors) determine which of the 0.3% grade projects continue to operate eventually stabilising the price.

Whilst it should be clear to most that vanadium will spike, and that those prices will bring on supply and reduce price overtime. The fact is an IPO raises money at the time. If that time is one of peaky prices then surely money raised per share is likely to be optimal (given decent management). Money raised is money raised, if the price then falls so be it, but the money is still there to be used to progress haggan. Given the potential scope of the restructuring of the market, whilst current >24usd/lb prices look peaky looking at the historic price chart, there could easily be plenty of upward movement from here.

As I've said before the timings looking pretty good. Most of any success I realise elsewhere is likely to get reallocated here at these levels. Shame that as previous the illiquidity on aim seems to have sp more range bound and cheaper shares have actually been available post spike of late. Won't be waiting for a repeat of that tho!

AIMO GLA

With this sustained vanadium price action. Led currently, by Chinese rebar code changes coming in November, but with increasing and new demand from vrfbs. This new demand factor (if vrfbs take hold as a major grid scale energy storage solution provider - hopefully not prevented due to inhibitively high V price) will fundamentally and permanently (for multiple decades) change the vanadium industry and therefore the associated commodity prices.

Two massively important and currently unanswered questions for the prospects of Vanadis.

1. What is the all in cost of production of Vanadis' haggan sourced V2O5 from the 'high grade' 49mt at >0.4% grade - at what vandium price does the production price become economic, not just to produce but to incentivise the very large capital expense to put into production. The lower this cost in relation to the concurrent and forecast commodity price will vary the investment appetite from ii's and JV partners. This, again to varying degrees, should prove to affect the cost of the capital required. Reduction of cost of capital via these outside influences is for me the biggest factor toward haggan actually being realised. Reduced cost of capital also has potential of reducing the inevitable dilution during progression from developer to producer.

2. Whilst imo a positive outcome to Q1 should be sufficient to get haggan over the line and become a producer. Once there (I feel this unanswered question can wait until then if needed) does the vanadium at haggan quoted at 0.3% become economically viable at the plateaued price dasian discussed recently on this bb. Whilst getting the open pit going and producing from the highest grade zone will be a massive company valuation driver. A process capable of significantly profitable production at this unknown future new long term average vanadium price from the 900mt contained at this lower grade would be an absolutely massive score.

AIMO GLA

JZ will likely have known minex selling - would explain lack of attention to/consideration of/willingness to support share price. Also slow progress on work programme/resultant news flow.

May have contributed to long term downward pressure on sp.

Why would JZ et al pump sp to allow minex out at artificial inflated prices whilst, not only, not doing similar themselves but actually facilitating such an exit at their own expense (buying at 4.5 and 2p). Esp as only months later same people (CCC) suggest willingness to divest.

The behaviour of the connected parties doesn't add up for an orchestrated high value exit. Feb speed ticket RNS prime example. That rise could have lead to higher liquidity and minex could exited both faster and at higher price.

AE, when he emailed reply to king (again thanks for sharing) likely knew of minex share off load. Email content (uninvolved and subtly negative) seems strange given the likely context. In fact a reply at all seems strange if he was aware. Given the links through him to RK and MS of minex - would be surprising if he didn't know.

UMH are the ones with a front row seat to the license situation. If it was bad they would be selling yet no deviation as 2nd largest holder and no *. Or are they likely unable to act legally with said knowledge, good or bad?

Pointless ramblings I know but a permanent (hopefully - old posts still unavailable) record of thought process will help me spot misguidances in retrospect - my main aim.

Aimo ATB

Been pondering minex sell out a bit. Most probable scenario for me is as amtech suggested. Single sell order placed and notification only upon completion. Seems coincidental that order completion was within 5 days of expected results, and so close to shareholder update and so close to mining charter gazette. Since order likely took many months if not over a year to complete. Could the timing have been engineered (again similar to what amtech suggests). Alternatively exit was mainly completed many months ago during better liquidity and at most, finished off lately - to justify timing of informing uru and market (I'm unaware if this is possible).

The single order reason for none notification seems likely as I remember seeing tr1s elsewhere with new holdings over 5 percent on several occasions (meaning a single buy order took holdings from sub notifiable 3% crossing 2 notifiable thresholds to end up between 5-6 for example). So if happens on buy side - can happen on sell side.

Question remains why sell now (well nowish - likely decision taken last year).

Early 2017 good price to sell (relative to previous years 2013 - 16) but only for a few months. The last 10 months (when we've mostly noticed the 1m sells) mainly selling sub 1p. I can't find when/how minex holdings came about so can't comment on likely price they paid, if any, for shares held. Linked Co through personnel - panex was years ago appointed contracts for exploration in the previous SAN JV (see linked RNS). So presumably minex were at least close to, and likely knowledgable on the projects inclu zeb.

On the face of it it looks suggestively bad. People with likely good understanding of mining in general and of project - choosing to sell out upon commencement of exploration campaign restart (if they did enjoy up to 4p).

Either they decided to sell before the drilling and got a few months of good prices - more neutral and understandable. Or they decided to sell after drilling and results and got poor prices - suggestively worse or questionable re motive (esp given results were not poor in relation to existing deposit) I too seem to remember * as long standing but unsure of dates - suggests former.

A few thoughts from all this.

If we don't hear of major sellers until orders complete then we may not hear of major buyers likewise (intrinos may 19 x 1m+ transfers). Getting a major shareholder on the books that meets with approval of BoD and likely to improve company in some way could be a possible motivation for sustained low price/transfer of minex shares. Absolutely no evidence of this, would be nice tho. But if so I would see it as good for the future. Retail holdings more likely (on the whole) to be sold/traded. The right substantial shareholder could, and effectively so, maintain if not decrease further the previous free float. Making sustained future gain more likely.

AIMO ATB

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2016/0528/How-China-is-bringing-its-fuel-quality-standards-up-to-global-levels

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-diesel-idUSKCN1LT0NQ?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

Bet they hoping for an improvement in platinum market. Not great at mo and EVs won't help. They need fuel cell tech to catch on.

Short term I've read that the major trigger for improved platinum prices would be china actually enforcing it's recent rules on cleaner (less sulphur content) diesel. Can't remember the detail I'm afraid but it's along these lines I think. Currently much of their diesel is so high in sulphur it would just clog up cat converters. With the restrictions enforced and lower sulphur content cat converters could then be installed to really clean up the particulates in the air that is the major cause of all the health problems they experience - long term EVs will negate this. Cat converters require platinum and a good proportion China's fleet needing to be retrofitted with them would create a demand surge and push prices up very quickly.

The flatreef is the world best PGE deposit. The capex has been very high and they not finished spending yet. Mogalakwena is more like what we have recently discovered but just massive, proved up and producing. That has been a real money spinner for AA despite the poor Platinum prices (open pittable - cheap operation). Flatreef on the other hand is and has been a money pit so far. If it were not for Friedlands ability to raise capital keep investors inboard based on his previous huge successes, imo it would have been on hold. Given the uncertainty over SA mining over the last year or so, esp combined with the outlook for platinum. Links above show possible good news on the way tho.

Debate about whether commodity prices are relevant to sp here as we produce nothing - my view is yes. To deny relevancy imo leans towards denial of the existence of the phenomenon of optionality. History is littered with examples of deposits (many of which remain unmined to this day) that were bought up cheaply during low commodity prices and flogged at many multiples to purchase price towards the peak of bull markets of the commodity in question. Giga metals used to have MCap of >100m due to turnagain and suitably high nickel price for likely viability. More recently mcaps dropped closer to 10m. Lumina copper off loaded deposits during last major copper run that still have not been put into production. Optionality clearly exists or at least has done in previous cycles. Why wouldn't it exist in the next one. For me once someone acknowledges optionality then commodity price becomes relevant even pre production when considering speculation on a particular deposit.

Personally happy we are dominantly reliant on nickel prices over PGE's

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Xi-Jinping-Volkswagen-and-the-fall-of-platinum

AIMO ATB

Double whammy of a positive - not only relatively freebee data but a highly prospective result too. Costs (future dilution), time and effort saved with simultaneous potential increase of further in ground value. Bit by bit the rock assets and connected strategy emerging and successfully at that. Little bits of luck sometimes go along way. Great find whoever is responsible - make your own luck.

AIMO GLA

Thanks for posting news. Lse rubbish at times. Currently well down here, if had funds I'd av down off back of this development, alas none free. News very good tho hopefully my paper loss can begin reducing today. Agree funding hints/news remain very important here. Hopefully hear something pre kickoff.

AIMO GLA

Surprised at that. Didn't think they could just not tell uru (within rules) until all out. Supposed to inform with 5 days (uru AoA). Suspension was 5 days ago. Could be they sold off market? Recently? If uru is taken private we still shareholders and only one kind of share in issue (to my knowledge) so all treated equally (rose tinted glasses again?) * makes it look very likely they been selling on sly for an age drip by drip. Question is why.

Only one thing for sure there not much we can do trading wise so the waiting (now with slightly more baited breath) continues for me.

Getting exciting now, just not sure if it's in a good way.

AiMO GLA

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=URU&ArticleCode=04orgi0r&ArticleHeadline=EGM_Requisition

It can be done (calling egm) and seems nwt (old CCC) did it to niger U (old uru) back 2010 with a view to getting the last set of dividends ball rolling (kalahari to sell xtract).

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=URU&ArticleCode=04orgi0r&ArticleHeadline=EGM_Requisition

We got to around 12% last time on this board we need over 30% to be taken notice of.

Question is who owns all these shares that were not included in either the mbennet83 round up or listed in major shareholders? Why are they not viewing one of the major social media outlets for info and or willing to act on lack of co provided info?

Prevailing sentiment on twitter is worse and more consistent than lse.

Who are these entities why are they not looking to exercise shareholder power through aggregation of holdings and to force answers if negative sentiment is so strong?

Same people/entities who bought the reciprocations of many of the the 1m sells? Intrino suggested May saw 19 1m sells but also 19 1m buys.

I'll put my 2m towards calling egm just in case anyone fancies, has time and motivation of going down that road again.

As vestor points out the management seem to be doing the very opposite of the pump up to the 4.5p placing (with plausible deniability) and this suspension seems the deramp activity crescendo.

Would be interesting to hear any of the hypothetical motives behind such prolonged actions considering the facts (not opinions/appearances) we know. 2016/17 BoD increasing exposure at higher aggregate sp to current. Improving asset, improving market, improving regulatory regime and zero dilution since that conducted at around ten times current sp.

Zorbas has money riding on this, just because he is concentrating elsewhere does not imo mean he completely ignores uru. He doesn't get paid so devotes effort accordingly. His concentration appears delegated towards wherever the timing is right to make money. Currently US/Canadian gange. My research suggests to me 2019 is the year for Ni to make the incentive required price jump for Zeb.

After so many years involvement in these assets (mostly without the mrs angle to show at least some tangible value) why now would this company fail?

Some fear has existed for more than 6 months (talk began before last major share holdings page update) from some that CCC were selling out. Upon repeated proof that this hasn't been the case a new reason for fear has emerged within one week.

I agree the situation doesn't look rosy but I just struggle to reconcile the motivation of the de ramping nature of much of the previous 18 months activity. Wonder if luthercorps short is still open and how they feel at the mo?

AIMO ATB