Member Info for Dave85

Mrs sells likely GB exiting (see their last RNS) he is karrabin. Different jurisdiction but amc got mining license (equiv-production) years ago and still awaiting for pfs so not so in Russia. Mprda has many things required for granting mining license but p/dfs not mentioned. Producing miners, on a ongoing continued basis conduct prospecting activities (at stages throughout through their ops) to increase/extend mine life around the area of their mine so exploration can be done under mining license, (each step up covers everything included in prev step, recci to prosp to mining). Question is have the guys done the work/deals required to achieve/prove they have/are suitability/suitable for mining license approval. They've had the time but bottom line is we have no idea. Interesting how far East the ip transects go looks like they investigating the footwall to the existing nickel resource to me (on top of-getting your eye in calibration which we are told the phase 1 is for). Aimo ATB

Would never claim to have answers just a laymans take on a collection of info ive read

Boiling down the evidence

section 18 (4) of.....

https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MPRDA-28-of-2002.pdf

'(4) A prospecting right may be renewed once for a period not exceeding three years.'

Highlights statements of ....

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=URU&ArticleCode=q2jar633&ArticleHeadline=Zebediela_Project_Update

'Prospecting licences that make up the Zebediela Nickel Project renewed for an additional two years

The Company has submitted an application to consolidate the three prospecting licences into one to reduce costs going forward'

Within section 7 of...

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=URU&ArticleCode=8t8p1s5l&ArticleHeadline=Interim_Results

'On April 19, 2017, the Company entered into a Corporate and Management Services Agreement (the "Agreement") with UMH. As per the Agreement, UMH shall provide to UML services including project management, coordination of mining rights application, mineral rights management, finance and accounting, technical, metallurgical, engineering and geological services and corporate finance and capital raising. In exchange of the services, UMH will earning the following fees:'

UML is owned by URU

URUs Zeb project exploration manager is Richard Montjoie who is also 'Director South Africa' of Umbono Capital which is the parent company of UMH.

From first link, section 19 (1b)

'(1) In addition to the rights referred to in section 5, the holder of a prospecting right has-
(b) subject to subsection (2), the exclusive right to apply for and be granted a mining right in
respect of the mineral and prospecting area in question'

My take therefore is, we have an already renewed (one time renewable) prospecting license due to expire at latest 31/10/18 (2 years from day previous to RNS (no date of renewal provided)) and have (since 19/04/17) been paying a company (likely involving our own Zeb exploration manager) to apply for a mining license which URU have the sole right to apply for. I also believe once such an application has been lodged no other applications can be granted until such lodged application is refused out right irrespective of time such a decision takes.

The big mystery is the renewal for 2 not the max possible 3 years. The individuals to make this mysterious decision (assuming it was not an imposed duration) are the same individuals who stand to lose/gain the most from it and imo have shown no signs of back tracking from their financial commitment to URU since making it.

From what I see (taking in all the evidence ive seen not just the above) I remain very positive of great outcomes for uru shareholders at some point.

AIMO ATB

Yet another share Im locked into by suspension. More hopeful of good returns here than elsewhere & very glad I averaged down recently. In for the ride! Thanks to all the knowledgable posters on here! GLA

All good for tiris/aura imo https://www.juniorminingnetwork.com/junior-miner-news/press-releases/581-tsx/cco/50062-cameco-reports-second-quarter-results-and-its-decision-to-suspend-production-at-mcarthur-river-and-key-lake-for-an-indeterminate-duration.html GLA

Part 2/2

Its my understanding that mineral rights remain exclusively those of the current rights holder until a lodged renewal (or application for mining right) has been either granted or refused even after date of expiry. This is the case for both renewal of prospecting & renewal of mining rights but I cant see specific reference to the change from one to the other (prospecting to mining).

As I mentioned in relation to/at the time of the draft charter hopefully UMH have lodged the mining right application with the DMR as this will mean the more arduous sections of it (free carry etc) dont apply to Zeb. Im now doubly hopeful as it seems granting will be needed to maintain uru mineral rights control.

Have UMH (who’s parent company is Umbono Capital (second link)) got something up their sleeve?

Reading what uru exploration managers, RM’s, blurb beside his photo as director of South Africa in Umbono says, including – ‘He has diverse experience in the various aspects of mineral rights and environmental licensing.’ IMO there is a decent chance.

http://www.umbono.com/index.php/principals/

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/uru-seeks-bee-partner-for-sa-nickel-project-2014-01-27/rep_id:3650

In relation to my post yesterday I have only interpreted what I could see. We have known Zeb has spanned 3 prospecting licenses as its stated in RNS 01/11/16

Again from my post 27/04/17

‘RNS 01/11/16 lpu had applied to dmr to consolidate 3 license areas into 1 to save future costs’

What costs could be saved?

Not the application of further prospecting rights as only one renewal is possible so this must imo refer to the mining rights fees that are payable per rights area (a 66% saving).

The blue line I referred to yesterday seems to be a prospecting rights boundary however its not categorical that the area to the south east is not within another uru prospecting area that is just not highlighted/outlined in blue. If so my inferences about extension would be misplaced but to me from what the map shows and the other segments of info I mentioned an extension seems likely.

Mining rights last up to 30 years and for an example of what they can (not will!!) do to a company’s sp, it interested me to look at the spike amc experienced in summer 2015 which was concurrent with just such an event.

AIMO ATB

Part 1/2

Apologies in advance for post length but want to try to be both detailed & clear.

From my post 27/04/18

'Prospecting- RNS 01/11/16 lpu had applied to dmr to consoilate 3 license areas into 1 to save future costs-no news confirming achievement. Prospecting licenses renewed for 2 years after successful visit in June after visit by dmr (at the time under zwane), if it was renewed by zwanes dmr I'm not particularly concerned on its upcoming renewal whether it be June or November or so time in between.'

Still no news but we know lack of news doesnt always mean lack of progress necessarily with URU.

The 2 year license duration is, as King has highlighted, strange as 3 years is the max & why give yourself unnecessary limitations. I was previously incorrect to not be concerned about the prospecting license renewal for a second time as the MPRDA section 18 (4) specifically states prospecting rights maybe renewed only once. Unless there is some way the second license duration can be amended to 3 rather than 2 or their was an error in the statement of 2 years in the RNS (v unlikely but errors not unheard of) then it would appear no further 'prospecting' work would be possible. A major fu & something I dont think will prove to have come to pass.

'Mining - rns 30/09/16-section 7-3 mining licenses held by parties unrelated to uml & transfer to lpu was incomplete, timing of transfer uncertain & REGULATORY approval of transfer remains outstanding.'

'What do we here from CR & GW reg regulatory (govt) changes of late-switching from relatively anti white owned & corrupt environment to environment aimed at relatively increasing attractiveness to foreign mining investment.'

Since we've had the backlog of licenses condemned by GM & he indicated action to clear it would be put in place.- my post 16/05/18

'RNS 29/12/17-section 7-agreement from 19/04/17 with umh that they get paid monthly to work on' (amongst other things) 'applying for uml (lpu) mining licenses for zeb'

Btw this little nugget was not separately RNSed but tucked into middle of interim results.

No further news on this but they have had well over a year and been paid >50k, if they are successful in getting a mining right they stand to gain 12m additional uru shares.

'LPU had/has prospecting licenses, but not mining licenses I'm sure detailed research could answer the question of who does currently own them. I'm taking my lead from past actions of entities who likely know this answer, & that has been to acquire exposure.'

I have continued in doing so but remain none the wiser as to license owners.

Certainly no expert and AIMO

MB call info would be greatly appreciated if you get a chance

ddavve85 at gmail dot com

Thanks

Now finally visualisation of the locations of recent work, together now with upcoming work has been RNSed, more attempted interpretation is possible. Imv looking at the location of historic drill hole UL-13 on pg13 of 2017 zeb presentation available at....

http://www.urumetals.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-webcasts

and comparing its location (close to the blue outlined 'prospecting right') with its location on the most recent RNS linked map on pg3 of.....

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9505U_1-2018-7-17.pdf

whilst considering the following section from RNS 28/04/17

In 2014, the Company acquired the right to extend the Zebediela prospecting licences up to a range of 5km. The Company can confirm that the process to extend the licences will begin shortly and a final decision to extend the area will be taken once the Company has analyzed the drill assays, the further metallurgical test work and the acid leach test results. The Company is awaiting regulatory confirmation of the amendment to the Zebediela prospecting right to include two adjacent prospecting licenses, thereby expanding the project area.

And finally looking at the map on pg2 of the 2nd link where 3 'main' black (uru) areas are outlined. It seems to me the final decision has been taken to extend the prospecting license area/project area.

If the second stage of IP (which clearly stretches out into an area south of the 2017 blue outlined prospecting right (ZGL002P & ZGL003P)) will be completed in the same mobilisation of GAP (cost efficient). Then as the first phase is expected to commence in August then it seems likely that regulatory approval is either in place or expected very soon?? Otherwise continuity of all transects would not be possible and a second mobilisation would be required.

Assuming obviously that a second mob is not already required to allow time for the 'success' of phase one to ascertained but imo the analysis needed to make that decision is likely poss within a timeframe which allows phase one to pass more or less straight into phase 2 however Ive no experience with this particular geophysical technique. Just how I see it anyway. DYOR AIMO ATB

On hols for a bit, just seen & very much liked RNS (apart from lack of progress) esp map and level of detail. Just read posts, thanks to any & all who applied pressure for this release. My views seem closest to vestors, y000 scenario would be incredible result even at 4.5p rather than 10 for me, I have vague memory that dman1987 may have a historic post reg historic CCC share buys but poss not all of them and post may not be currently accessible, much to be gleamed from the released info (time linked ip and magno at same time/mention of chrome incidence??/location of longest (most easterly geophys transects relative to discovery of 1.6Ni) for starters, I'm looking forward to looking closely over it once home, hole base depths and azimuths still a mystery tho at first glance so still crucial info missing but a vast improvement hopefully this standard can be maintained aimo ATB

btw if u do want to read ref's without paying their are ways apparently not that I do so but google and apparently russia is said to be your friend in that regard

MB zeb lies immediately east of the platreef which Anglo mine further north from us.
In the April 2017 momentous video (released oct) the geo liana mentions - pseudo platreef along the footwall.

Ivanhoe immediately west/n west of zeb have the flatreef deposit at 700m which is (from memory) analogous to the merensky only the thickness is greatly exaggerated making the deposit so much better economically.

Grades at zeb (recent assays) of around 2g/t are ballpark to platreef but seen as, to my knowledge, we have not been provided hole locations or even hole base depths the location of the discovery on the project and in relation to existing deposits ours/ivanhoes is unclear - frustratingly so imo. Not is any estimation of likely size of discovery possible - the holes could be 20m apart or 300m apart? They mention continuous layer.

Just a very quick post as very tired and off on stag do in morning but I posted some links to maps of geology in relation to zeb recently also a wealth of info can be found from reading the references in the following link.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/037174505X62893?needAccess=true

Aimo ATB

We knew that cost minimisation took precedence over rapidity of progress here and that has apparently been reinforced by the call.

The Geo chem sampling and IP were to be done prior to and in order to acquire targets for the drilling of previously mentioned 6 now apparently 3/4 holes.

This work itself would have to be planned, tendered for, undertaken, analysed and reported back to uru before the drill planning can really begin. Getting it all done as cheap as possible likely equates to waiting for a quiet spell or at least your turn and with mining related activity broadly experiencing an uptick - turnaround times are likely extended.

The switch from 6 to 3/4 holes may suggest that ip/geochem results have been looked over and drill targets decided upon. If they are drilling as a result of the testing for me that is a positive as they should at least have indications that there are targets worth drilling which indicates future further discovery potential continues. The 3/4 drills to come being based on IP/geochem is unconfirmed speculation however, even accepting call contents at face value.

Once drill programme is decided upon again they potentially need to get arrangements in place and await a non prioritised (cheaper?) opening for work to be completed.

The hit rate by the recent drilling has been impressive with each hole adding potential value in the ground and therefore worth the expense used in drilling it. I think being as careful as possible in maintaining that trend is absolutely the right thing to do.

Ignoring my view that news of a sale/sale talks/JV could land anytime which I know seem to be some/most peoples preference and does seem to tie in relatively more strongly with timing of CCC divestment. IMO time is on our side (obviously this is a personal view as my funds can happily stay here for years if I continue to think that is wise), Ni prices only getting better, PFS level at least required to achieve optimal sale price (likely 10-18 month process in itself), by then class 1 Ni prices likely put pea 2012 figures back in the money or close to it & if PFS figures can maintain or improve on them plus converting current indicated resource to probable reserve then for me a sale would be the best move.

Ive read today on amc board in a post by redlee from yesterday that john kaiser (mining expert) suggests fair value in terms of npv at pfs stage is up to 40%, our 2012 npv was 1b at Ni 8.5/lb so thats 400m which equates (at 1b shares-allowing for capital raising at close to recently achieved levels) to a share price equivalent to 40p. Even half that (in my pocket-shares in my ISA) would significantly change my ability to do more of what I want, which ultimately is why Im risking part of what I now have, here.

Accumulation down here below JZ av will continue to be my aim when I can AIMO GLA

King my (currently hungover) understanding is as follows

Under BVI companies act 2004 alone, the same TR1 notifications arent needed. However URU has chosen to be listed on AIM (a regulated market in an EEA country) due to this fact the DTRules therefore apply which are reinforced/restated explicitly in AIM rule 17.

If your listed on AIM (obviously by choice/non compulsory/motivated by ? - normally ability to grow/raise capital) your 'expected' to operate in accordance with AIM Rules irrespective of rules/regs of your geography of incorporation. Lots of grey areas and work arounds, as is usual with most sets of regs but a non issuance of TR1 from your own shareholding by yourself ? IMO pretty black and white.

My post last week was mainly focused on the 5% voting rights requirement for calling GM - this is not in AIM rules but is in Companies act 2006 (which imv doesnt apply to uru). Guidance for that I gathered from the BVI act and additionally from URU Articles as the applicable documents - which both stated 30% requirement.

Aisi the BVI incorporation gets them out of 5% GM calling rule until 30% voting rights are agreed around a singular reason for calling said meeting. It doesnt however get them out of DTRs which are relatively much more far reaching and included in AIm rules. If uru delisted from AIM then notifications would still be required under URU Articles of Ass. If Articles were amended the applicable rules would then revert back to BVI act and the same notifications would finally not be required.

http://www.urumetals.com/investor-relations/share-information/substantial-shareholders-and-free-float

Thats my take on the meaning of the text on the above linked uru site anyways

Totally agree why would they? News this week would be good, interesting if it includes - at x% premium to xday VWAP, as always we'll have to wait and see.

Beer sweats or heat sweats? either way im sticking close to the fan tonight ATB

Reg TR1s - its one thing to accept the reality of shareholders covertly crossing notifiable percentage thresholds when those holders are unknown/unconnected to a companies management - a companies non issuance seems reasonably excusable if evidence subsequently came to light.

Quite another thing however for an authority to believe/not penalise subsequently evidenced crossing of notifiable percentage thresholds by a shareholder use management include the exact same individuals as the company failing to issue the TR1.

Who/what ever is selling its not imo JZ, DS, or CCC as they would not have a leg to stand on in their defense in regard to their failure to inform themselves of their own actions/follow aim rule 17, unless they sell an amount that does not cause an integer percentage threshold to be crossed but the number of sells seen makes this unlikely unless of coarse holdings are later topped up with buys.

Personally not letting the 1m sells affect my decisions too much. AIMO ATB

Exactly king given that they've held on so long why dump it now and even if they did dump it why not pump price high as poss before hand. Their 15% could be worth many many millions in year/s to come. A few points why I think that.... https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/2018-nickel-outlook/ Interesting read Mixed outlook for nickel with spot price rises/stockpile drawdowns likely moderated to a degree by Indonesia's huge ramp up in npi sourced stainless steel. My view remains that we have a deposit with a good likelyhood of being a suitable source for class one nickel which is the required class for economic nickel sulphate production. On this front (towards the end of the article) the view is much more positive. A plant for sulphate production wouldn't add imo prohibitively to the capex and is apparently incentivised strongly by the draft charter 2018. Standout article points for me were chinese reduction in nickel sulphate import tax, emphasis of Chinese subsidy towards long range (high Ni consuming) EVs, and the possible introduction of separate lme markets for nickel types (the bifurcation of the nickel market) as early as next year. Ignoring the short term news vacuum and pushing, imo, recent possibly purposeful enhanced doubt to one side. Im focusing on the huge positives/potential including.... Following note relevant to 21/06/18 when I wrote it ForEx fluctuations from 2012 to now are currently at the point of a 40% favourable swing. This alone could reduce capex from 708m USD to <425m USD assuming as the charter would point to, the vast majority of expenditure will be in ZAR, Imv the majority of this reduction is realistic to expect? Opinions welcome Assuming nickel 8.5usd/lb pea gave npv of >1b usd. Only including 485mt (indicated). This didn't include PGE/higher grade Ni/magnetite. The indicated resource Imv can relatively easily be doubled (to include half of current inferred). More drilling required but not hundreds of holes more like 7-15 after all look how many we have already done to get our existing indicated & inferred tonnages (<30). All this leaching work, magnetite talk etc to me is icing on the cake it's not make or break. The pea was around floatation and the numbers stack up well, once nickel price is back where it needs to be. It's just a matter of when that will be 2019 still seems likely to me if the separate market is introduced. Wonder if the interest from these guys has picked up a bit since the recent assays certainly have relevant experience and enough of a stake to want zeb success. https://www.minexsa.com/key-people/ AIMO good weekend all!

MB many thanks again, clear progress & fair do's if answers are given, obvs to non inside qu's, if I was to ask one thing and expecting, as I do how easy and allowable it would be. It would be for the original pea to made available via the uru website as many other companies provide. Any chance call could be recorded and posted publically - just a friendly question no implications etc meant by any means (would bolster piece of mind that's all) ? Apologies if that is too much to ask/not reasonable/even more effort than uv already very kindly put in! ATB

Sanchez they are the ones to which I refer. JZ av I think is minimum of 0.0064 my post 22/05/18 and maybe slightly higher. All director options were taken at 2p with JZ adding 60k at a price 300% north of current prices and after he'd got his spot on mrs board-motivation?....Long term value? ATB

oops

Really cant get over how cheap this is. Its only become a better and better investment case imo since my original purchase north of here.

2 more buys for me today, Av now 0.00863p closer and closer to those who do know wtf is going on and who are still holding firm. IMO GLA ATB

6 Month platnium

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/pt0182nyb.html

6 month palladium

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/pd0182nyb.html

6 month Nickel

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/pt0182nyb.html

6 month Cu

http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/copper_historical_large.html#6months

RNS 16/03/18

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

Since 16/03/18 the commodity price movement from the above charts can be seen as making Zeb's contained basket of metal content look more and more positive relative to current and upcoming major mining projects on the Bushveld's northern limb.

Ive calculated the prices used in the above linked RNS as follows Pt price in $/oz - 882.69 / Pd price in $/oz - 914.52 / Ni price in $/lb - 6.31 and Cu price in $/lb - 3.18 (ive not catered for other constituents).

Using the following as current prices Pt price in $/oz - 816 / Pd price in $/oz - 940 / Ni price in $/lb - 6.5605 (recently down from over 7) and Cu price in $/lb - 2.9617 (ive not catered for other constituents).

This shows (for Pt/Pd/Ni & Cu) that whilst Mogalakwena and Flatreef basket prices have now decreased by approx $0.97/t or 0.79% and $1.89/t or 0.92% repectively (% of the values provided on the table from the linked rns).

Zeb's basket price has increased by approx $1.78/t or 1.25%

This to me already demonstrates the beneficial constituent metal content (namely relatively higher base metal vs PGE content) of the recently assayed material which obviously leads to increased likelihood of economic viability/profitability in the future . The uptrend in base metal prices is forecast to continue by consensus, whilst the Pt and Pd price futures are relatively more contentious (based mainly around future EV vs fuel cell & ICE vehicle sales, I think). IMO our basket price will continue on this increasingly attractive trend.

Normal caveat of poss mistakes & AIMO GLA