Member Info for flundra

And as an on market buy I guess we infer no closed period atm, so a while yet until exploration or other news perhaps

Yes has to be a buy. AP appointed 14/6/17, nil interest RNSed on 16/6/17, had no shares on 30/6/17 as per AR. And no notifications since until today.

Good point. These "sophisticated" investors" might sell a few to take advantage of the recent SP rise which was perhaps due to the U industry production cuts announced this week. But then again the SP is already very low, and Aura's U projects have become more valuable overnight, with the argument to progress them urgently now compelling.

The Cameco conference call recording on the Cameco website is well worth a listen. About an hour. CCJ are cautiously optimistic about the market, and are trying to lead the way in cutting production, hoping others will follow. Macarthur is expected to be off line in care and maintenance mode for 10 months, (plus one month to shut it down, and one month to put it back into production again). CCJ expect both the tax and Tepco lawsuits to go in CCJ's favour, although they would wouldn't they (!) and the Tepco case won't be heard until 2019. CCJ's basic strategy is to save resource and stay strong and flexible, and keep its corporate discipline and investment grade rating. This includes buying uranium on the spot market, whilst leaving its own in the ground for now (ie good news for the spot price and mopping up the supply glut). TG said "we as an industry are miles away from needing greenfield U projects". Re Kazakhstan, TG was a bit diffident, but confirmed CCJ's JVs there were complying with the cuts, and the Minister of Energy says Kazakhstan are complying. Broker consensus is that CCJ is a buy.

Cameco SP going strong today. Anyone know when the tax judgement is due (last I heard it was due before the end of this year, so imminent I believe)? It�ll lift a weight from Cameco�s shoulders, and indeed large swathes of Canadian industry, if it goes in their favour. Also, if as widely expected the U price spikes in short order like last time when spot rose from $20plb to $130plb in 3 yrs approx, it won�t have to rise very far up that kind of trajectory for the shut in capacity to become profitable again, although much will depend on re-commissioning timeframes/costs (all sorts of issues involved in that) if it is to be brought back. But don�t hold your breath for the U price recovery seems to be Cameco�s message atm.

I think the supply side destruction arguments for investing in BKY are secondary. OK BKY should do better than Kaza Cameco etc in relative terms (and its low costs), but only because of weak demand for the product. I'd much rather see accelerated Japanese reactor restarts and wider adoption of nuclear power generally. This would mean all U companies should do well on the back of strong demand after the glut is absorbed. PS I wonder what the Cameco SP will do today. After hours trading wasn't pretty, but rationalising output seems sensible and the market might like that.

http://m.marketwired.com/press-release/cameco-suspend-production-from-mcarthur-river-key-lake-operations-reduce-its-dividend-tsx-cco-2240103.htm SP rise presumably down in part to the news that Cameco is shutting in more U production, bringing the long awaited U price rise ever nearer. A big boost for all potentially viable U exploration/production projects, like BKY URA and AURA. I imagine AURA will now seek to expedite its U projects particularly Tiris and seek further cap- and op- expenditure reductions. Thanks to Baht on BKY for this link.

Re Tiris, completion of the DFS (currently slated for Q2 2018) is key IMO and should inform funders. Even at the attractive low cap cost, and reduced operating cost of $19.4pp, it would be a brave decision to fund given this is a developing country with the U spot price still moribund. Any further reductions in op costs would help. It's the right decision to be pushing on with Tiris at this rock bottom point in the cycle though IMO. A completed DFS and funding in place by end 2018 to build the mine and bring it to production would be very nice indeed, but it will likely take longer IMO.

Me too! Not to mention the vanadium, nickel, zinc etc etc lol I like the fact that there's a number of strings to Aura's bow, eg the cobalt, vanadium and copper etc for the batteries "theme", and the uranium for reliable scalable green power. All should increase in significance in the coming few years imo. There's even a bit of gold as the icing on the cake.

Fair comment. AIM natural resource micro caps can be a bit of a nightmare, indeed the concerns you articulate are part of the reason I set my entry level so low. GL with this, it's got multi-bag potential at least. It's gone into my SIPP and I'm assuming a 5 to 10 year timeframe. Although I think the Swedes will strongly support Haggan going forward.

Hi easyp I might be misunderstanding you, but is there any particular reason why we shouldn't accept this at face value as a fundraising for working capital? It's disappointing of course for rank and file shareholders to be diluted, but there could be a number of legitimate reasons why the bod considered it better to do an equity raise rather than use cash reserves or bank facilities etc. I had a target price of 1.2p here but dipped my toe in on Friday at just under 1.3p (which showed as a sell btw). Tiris looks interesting, but getting exposure to Haggan at (hopefully) ground floor level swung it for me. If EVs, batteries and nuclear power take off to the extent I suspect they will, payback may come sooner than the 5-7 years currently anticipated. The directors fees seem...er...generous but I think this share's worth a punt now.

Hi ghost Agreed, I'm really only saying FWIW my hunch right now is for a relatively early re-listing. Paraphrasing the bite size Cochran quote with the resolution result, he literally says HNL will now (1) complete the DCS deal, then (2) integrate those DCS assets, then (3) re-list. Just my hunch, but I suspect 1 will happen quickly, 2 will take a few months, and 3 will happen at any time during those few months (with preparations for it having been proceeding in the background!) But I agree his comments don't of course preclude other acquisitions or news in the interim, which could alter things, and radically. And dangerous to infer (as I am doing!!) anything about a timetable to re-listing. I did wonder yesterday if anything else had been said at the meeting about this, and assumed not. That's also a good point you make about potentially delaying re-listing to avoid another RTO suspension scenario on another acquisition. I guess the question is whether another acquisition is more or less likely before relisting. My hunch right now is it's less likely, but I only really say that because there's been none since it was suggested in early September (although I wouldn't necessarily expect to have heard even if one's being cooked up as we speak, and anyway it's early days). And at the same time we are being told completion of the DCS deal (already well advanced), with integration of the assets, is the "immediate focus". We are also told relisting is to follow (although then again relisting is not part of the "immediate focus" bit!!) All in all I'm very happy with how this is going!

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/haloil/news/rns/story/xo6pmdx At face value, Cochran's comment means re-listing before other acquisitions. So...fairly soon on AIM again perhaps?

The Spanish political question will no doubt pop up in BKY's proactiveinvestors 1-2-1 roadshow on 16 Nov London.

Good question Tiger. Can�t say I�m too worried either though. In this month�s Japan election, the opposition parties campaigned on an anti-nuclear ticket � they got soundly beaten (but not just for that reason of course). My hunch in Spain is that the jobs and economic benefits in this depressed area will see off any opposition to the mine progressing, whatever political party gains or loses influence. Puidgemont now seems to have done a runner, the Euro is holding its own, and the Spanish stock market is recovering (with Europe going strongly anyway). So today at least it looks like Spain is more likely to return to �as you were�. There�s been some objection from some �environmental groups� to BKY�s project of course, but popular objection to nuclear generally in the world seems to me to be more focussed on downstream power generation and weapons, as opposed to mining for the raw material (and most of BKY�s product is destined for non-EU countries). If that�s right, Podemos would perhaps struggle to garner support to interfere. When are the next elections btw? The further away the better perhaps, because it might be more difficult to interfere with a more advanced project. Also, reversing all the local and national permits, compensating all the stakeholders, and re-creating mass unemployment etc would be a tough policy to sell to say the least!

Thanks for that Broxburn68. The back of my fag packet was also showing a cash surplus (but with slightly larger figures now explained) into positive cash flow, hence query the need for working capital at all. So it seems BKY have a lot of options for w/c, including cash, debt and small equity raise, none of which cause concern, and which is good per se.. There's interesting commentary on t/o potential in there too.

Thank you for the guidance your holiness. Probably a silly question, but.. BKY have A$29m in the bank, and in addition the Oman agreement of up to $120m to fully fund to first production. So, why do they need a working capital facility at all? I thought all funding requirements had been fully nailed down with the Oman deal. And is anything else unfunded now? Glad to hear at least that the w/c will be debt.

It's a very useful tool in the management box when shares (like HNL!) are genuinely undervalued

The polls are indicating Abe's heading for a two-thirds majority win. Good for the nuclear sector if so

Thanks for posting that spinning. It does seem incredibly unfair that HNL should lose ISA status, in circumstances where it is likely it will re-list. I wonder if HMRC have addressed this issue at all. When AIM stocks became ISAable, I can�t believe HMRC ever intended that they should lose it in these circumstances ie where de-listing is probably temporary and has come about really only because of corporate law and commercial and costs reasons. I hold a couple of AIM stocks in my ISA, and I guess HNL�s situation highlights one of the risks of this. It may be best to sell up before suspension/de-listing, and hold the cash till it�s re-admitted, then buy back, but.....how to know when a suspension/de-listing event is coming!