London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Part 2/2 Text from urumetals webpage on share info demonstrates to me that their aim listing is the reason dtr compliance needs to be met as bvi co act 2004 doesn't require the same disclosures as the aim rules/aim listing do (rule 17), hence provision is written into AoA. Aim rules don't appear to mention calling requirements of general meetings (link below) http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/advisers/aim-notices/aim-rules-for-companies-july-2016.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents Companies act 2006 (link immediately above) and associated amendment 2009 (link immediately below) ref by star-where the new 5% requirement was put in place from the prev 10% are uk legislation and apply to uk incorporated companies. From part 34 Co's act 2006 I take that overseas incorporated companies (applies to uru as defined in section 1044) can only be required (through introduction of new regulation) by secretary of state to comply with certain areas of the act, seen in section 1045(1) to be section 43 to 52 - formalities of doing business. These areas do not include part 13 which includes section 303 regarding the calling of GM's http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1632/made Section 82 (2) (link immediately below) of bvi companies act 2004 states a requirement of 30% (max) of voting rights for members (holders of voting rights-shareholders) to call a meeting and that % needs to provide written notice that they are in agreement on a specific reason for calling the meeting before the call has any power. https://www.conyersdill.com/consolidatedact-files/BVI_Business_Companies_Act_2004_Conyers.pdf Looking through URUs AoA (link below) section 74 references the same 30% alongside difficult to independently clearly interpret wording but within the meetings section. http://www.urumetals.com/media/82903/URU-Metals-Memorandum-and-Articles-of-Association-STAMPED.PDF Basically, in support of my post From Friday at 17:07 I think bvi Co's act 2004 applies not companies act 2006 & that written notice of 30% agreement behind a specific meeting reason is required in order to call a meeting-would explain 'handful' comment. I would add my minimal shares towards the cause if others requested but having learnt more about things currently wouldn't wish to instigate anything. Still may have got this wrong but above does seen to be the case as I see it aimo ATB

In the LSE interview..... PR states-company has done valuation cases to show a well run, functioning pre-development vanadium company could be in the order of 70m - 100m AUD but they are working on a much lower figure of 30m - 50m AUD. Using lower range for Haggan IPO listing ballpark gives following value to aura IPO value (AUD) / aura stake retained (%) / value of retained stake (GBP) (assuming ex rate 0.56:1) / equiv increase to aura sp (assuming full additional value expressed and 1,069,390,795 shares in issue) / equiv % gain from sp today at 1.15p 30m / 70 / 11.67m / 1.10p / 95.6 30m / 80 / 13.45m / 1.26p / 109.3 50m / 70 / 19.60m / 1.83p / 159.4 50m / 80 / 22.40m / 2.09 / 182.1 This is happening Q3/Q4 this year Now what he thinks pre-development Vanadis could be worth...probably a good while off yet (and this does not include further reductions in retained stake, if any were made) 70m / 70 / 27.44m / 2.57p / 223.1 70m / 80 / 31.36m / 2.93p / 255.0 100m / 70 / 39.20m / 3.67p / 318.8 100m / 80 / 44.80m / 4.19p / 364.3 Even if IPO completed at 10m AUD and aura only retained 70% thats still worth additional >30% on current sp, but given how hot vanadium is currently, imo it will be much closer the PR figures. Also considering his ballpark figures Vanadis should raise between 5.04m and 8.40m GBP for Haggan progression. On top of this we can expect updated Haggan scoping study by this September and Tiris DFS this year. Tiris is why Im here-aura targeting 2019/2020 production of 1mlbs/a from a 45-50m USD capex 'mine' (more like extraction its that shallow). There isn't many uranium companies who are imo more likely to successfully raise sufficient funds/enter production before aura. The uranium price is on the rise from unsustainable lows and even at current prices PR feels Tiris is viable. Looked into the companies (total of 2 I think) that managed to bring on producing mines during the last uranium cycle. Their share prices very much outperformed all uranium sector completion. Lots to look forward to. AIMO ATB

Zeb is URUs flagship but we also have Burgestfort and Narke and our MCap is currently around 5m and the company has history of issuing divis of mutiples of is MCap. Some company released facts to muse over... Zebs prospecting licenese is held by a subsidiary LPU (lesego platinum UITLOOP) compare page 76 map in following https://www.ivanhoemines.com/site/assets/files/1870/2013-03-13_platreef_ni43-101.pdf with page 9 in the following URU presentation http://www.urumetals.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-webcasts/developing-a-world-class-deposit-april-2017 Ivnahoes project encompases turfspruit, macalacaskop and rietfontein, it was originally targeting resources amenable to open pit mining which in the first link AMEC results suggested were potentially present-subject to further study. The study found rietfontein was critical to the open pit resource (ATS resources page 34). They outlined the pit shell in what they designated zone 4 Now compare page 13 map in uru presentation with diagrams on page 80 (ivn report) whilst keeping in mind the wider perspective and seeing the orientation of geological features within the Bushvelds northern limb (page 86)-Zeb is along strike,very very close and larger (looking at page 34). Now read 4.4.2 and see how the JV with Atlaska (owner at time of study of prospecting right over rietfontein) and how they agreed with Ivanhoe to get a free carry through feasibility then get option of 5% NSR or proportional funding of ongoing work with any shortfall made up through proportional dilution. Compare the 5% NSR deal with a comparible project (in respect to total resource size and grade) to Zeb-RNC's Dumont (more advanced project and with resource proved to higher confidence) and consider the news that a 1.75% NSR was earlier this year purchased by Cobalt 27 from RNC in respect to Dumont for implied value of 70m USD see below. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/02/22/1379690/0/en/Cobalt-27-Acquires-Royalty-on-Dumont-a-World-Class-Construction-Ready-Nickel-Cobalt-Project-in-Canada.html Ivanhoe went in another direction after another company had success drilling deep-IVN tried the same on turfspruit and discovered at 700m the worlds most important deposit of platinum so they concentrated on that instead of the open pit area which negated any rights ownership issues/dilution. Regarding the Mining Charter a problematic/poorly written/poorly considered clause which gave the potential for infinite dilution that rendered last Junes version unworkable in the eyes of the chamber of mines and provoked a court challenge has now been removed. Subsequent to the challenged charter the sp bearly dipped below 0.5 so now a far more agreeable and investment positive charter is almost finalised I dont see a dip to 0.2. If it happens Ill remain a buyer. AIMO ATB

Firstly this is a draft and is open now to public consultation for a month and the summit to discuss the contents is yet to take place, imv changes are still a possibility. A few bits caught my eye DMC section 6 para 4 'in respect of junior miners (assets <393mGBP), a right holder may make representation to the minister regarding the extent to which the MC elements shall apply'-to me this reads that they wont unnecessarily throttle juniors and reasonable leeway/discretion will be implemented. Draft Mining Charter (DMC) section 6 pg 33 - Mining charter also applies to prospecting rights. We have existing prospecting rights (going back years) and are likely to have lodged an application for renewal (considering RNS 01/11/16-prospecting licenses renewed for 2 years after successful DMR visit in June & MPRDA section 17(1)- prospecting rights to be granted within 30 days of application....if criteria met) prior to DMC2018 coming into effect so to me DMC section 2.1.1 and/or 2.1.2 should/are likely to apply rather than section 2.1.3-this would negate the 'free carry' (most problematic) element along with the trickle div & black % board representation, as these will apply only to new mining rights. If DMC 2.1.3 does turn out to apply the 1% ebitda trickle div only kicks in during 12 months after 6th year after granting of mining right and stops once dividends start. The free carry is a bit disappointing but I think there may still be a chance this is removed/reduced/amended prior to finalisation. DMC section 2.1.4 is interesting max 11% of BEE shareholding can instead be catered for by equity equiv mechanism-like a nickel sulphide plant which would constitute the beneficiation requirement (DMC 2.1.4 (dii)? maybe the addition % points can be made up in this way instead? Otherwise BEE would have to be increased to 30% within 5 years according to DMC 2.1.1.2 JZ in june 17 podcast from 8:30-max return on the capital for BEE component is already capped so any change on the equity stake does not effect us. So to me that sounds like whatever the BEE partners percentage their return in monetary terms from capital realised from Zeb has been capped & wont change pursuant to contracts already agreed. Im unsure as to the level at which this capping has been set and havn't come across any details of the contracts he refers to? Basically upon my first look over it, it could be better but the worst clauses of last years version are gone & a lot of the uncertainty has also gone both of which are massive positives. The most problematic parts of DMC2018 may not apply to Zeb due to the existing agreements with BEE partners and or existing/pending rights in place. Even if these tricky bits do apply they are likely to be the problem of a future mid tier/major purchaser of Zeb not of URU & given the newsflow we are expecting-certain results still imv have potential to demonstrate Zeb to be highly attractive to such a buyer under this ch

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Dave85

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)