Member Info for snooz

> DLC up 20% on the update.
Reuters description of DLC: About Delecta Ltd
Delecta Limited is an Australia-based company engaged in wholesale distribution of adult products and mining exploration and evaluation.

wut?
and
Can we expect Thor to get and stay above 1p without a business unit that can ship uranium-powered glow-in-the-dark dildos?

Bit of movement today - don't see any particular news, nothing more significant than general shortages of natural resources.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/214114/thor-mining-s-gold-assets-energise-the-share-price-214114.html . I saw the headline "Thor Mining's gold assets energise the share price" and got excited immediately checked what's happening - sadly it's just fake news - unless "energise" has some meaning I'm not aware of.

Here it is https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02432330-2A1329320?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

I'm too tight to pay for L2 data, but I did notice today that while the LSE bid-offer showed as 0.90-0.95 all day today (I don't think it changed at all?), there was small size offered at 0.923 and 0.928 by RSPs. I guess one or more of those 0.923's are yours goldbar2 (which as per Bridgedogg1 is through the mid).
If you've low broker fees, you may [continue to] find a series of smaller sizes gets a better average price than a single larger trade.

I spent a couple of years just around the corner in a space in Throgmorton Ave. Up in a 6th floor attic space - nice team to work and drink beer with in place nearby but utterly disrespected by the people we were servicing (hence just the couple of years rather than any longer).

andmillsy> John Quakes imo very informed source https://twitter.com/quakes99/status/1441548983025823748?s=19
Thanks. Now "following" him. He's got quite a collection of accounts that he follows too; I'll follow some of them with caution of building up an echo-chamber.
He follows Thor Mining (THR) which is a miner I've been keeping an eye on recently specifically regarding some permits. (I'm long that, so shamelessly taking the opportunity to raise awareness of it here.)

andmillsy, you put this in quotes: "Word is that Japanese uranium trading group Itochu...
Can you say where you are quoting that from?

>Interesting dynamic starting to play out in Uranium spot market as KAZ and others "need" to buy I understand c10mil lbs.
I can't tell if this following idea is madness or genius... someone ask/suggest to the KAZ board?: they should buy up YCA shares below NAV, then buy uranium at spot from YCA, deliver to YCA at the forward prices already agreed, and then deliver it back to themselves.

>I don't have clear view on this but I think the management charge on Sprott is only 0.35% and I'm sure YCA corporate costs will be greater equivalent %.

https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/y/yellow-cake-plc-ord-gbp0.01/costs says
Average annual charge 0.54%

So greater, but not hugely.

Comparing SPUT to YCA. YCA is preferable because...

I like SPUT because when above NAV they will raise money and buy Uranium. But AFAIK that don't have a mechanism for share buyback when below NAV, whereas YCA has done buybacks when below NAV in the past.
SPUT's upside is capped at the uranium price, but the downside isn't. Hence I'm a happy investor in YCA and not SPUT, and will continue to hold it rather than SPUT until it carries a higher (how much higher I don't know) premium than SPUT.

I ask this as an invitation for anyone/all to correct my understanding rather than being rhetorical: why would anyone buy SPUT rather than YCA?

DRMS says about the extension:
...I am aware that you saw the Extension Request which we received and approved yesterday. I have been in contact with the Operator and they are currently working on the permitting process through San Miguel County which will be a concurrent permit they need to hold. In order to allow them time to work through that process they have requested and extension to their decision date with our office. They and we are optimistic that this will wrap up sometime in the next 60 days and we can finalize our file and render a decision. I see it unlikely that another extension will be needed beyond the current Decision Date of December 20, 2021.

I have now asked (this is by email). I guess they aren't obliged to reply - but it's reasonable that they should because if someone's going to submit a comment/complaint about the application they surely need more details of the application then the few rows out of a database.

I've reached out to someone at Colorado DRMS regarding who made the application (the company name "Standard Minerals INC" not "Standard Metals Processing Inc") - see if they'll give me some extra details (e.g. names/addresses) so I will be able to confirm if one owns the other from that.
I do agree it's exactly the same three "Section 23, Groundhog and Rim Rock" locations as in Thor 's acquisition RNS - so probably is a subsidiary.

>I suspect the decision is extended by a month each month when the deadline comes up?
Based on the new date, you're not cynical/pessimistic enough - it gets delayed by three months each time the deadline comes up?!

FYI - I have THR on my "radar" as am of the opinion that anything with positive uranium news can have a sudden upward move.

P2021008 Wedding Bell Project (Groundhog Area) Standard Metals Processing Inc V MP NULL San Miguel 5/3/2021 6/2/2021 NULL 6/30/2021 9/29/2021 NULL NULL Lucas West...

vs

> https://www.thormining.com/sites/thormining/media/pdf/asx-announcements/20200708-us-uranium.vanadium-sampling-assays.pdf

The pdf refers to "Standard Minerals INC" not "Standard Metals Processing Inc" as appears on the planning application website. Would like to see someone confirm - but I reckon it's a different company: https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/SMPR