VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 21, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Riverside Resources Inc. (“Riverside” or the “Company”) (RRI.V) (RVSDF) (R99.F) is pleased to report initial results from the Company’s first-phase exploration program at the recently staked Sandy Project (the “Project”) located in northwestern Sonora, Mexico. Riverside continues to leverage its knowledge and experience in NW Mexico to cost-effectively acquire new prospective concessions with strong potential for new discoveries.
Riverside geologists have completed near surface sampling, mapping and geophysics to work up initial target areas at the Project. Riverside’s exploration team is targeting intrusion related and orogenic gold mineralization hosted by altered granite and linked with large structures adjacent to gneiss bedrock.
Riverside’s President and CEO, John-Mark Staude, stated: “The Sandy Project was a project the Company staked over a prospective area known to us from our past work in Sonora. We are pleased with the results from our first pass on the Sandy Project. Gold appears associated with large structures, intrusions and is an exciting potential step in the geologic deposit modeling for Sonora. We plan to follow up these positive results with some mapping and more sampling in 2019.”
The sampling done to date by Riverside has been concentrated on two areas in the center of the project with past historical mine workings (see Figure 1 below) associated with felsic intrusive stock and gneiss. A sample from one of these old workings returned 38.8 g/t Au. Chip channel samples of 1.5 meter in length returned gold results of 9.3 g/t, 4.7 g/t and 3.7 g/t Au. A total of 71 samples have been analyzed so far and further work at Sandy is anticipated to continue to define the structural nature and intrusion association to the gold.
Higher gold grades appear to be associated with intersecting structures within strongly foliated granitic intrusive bedrock. Primary structures strike NW-SE and dip between 40 and 70 degrees to the east in a general structural character with similar orientation and style to some of the shear zone gold mines in the region. Other smaller faults are noted striking roughly north-south and dipping steeply to the east which cut the main shear zone and could possibly hide extensive expansions of the gold system under shallow cover. The cross structures have been intruded by mafic dikes that show pervasive propylitic alteration indicating potential deeper intrusion related gold mineralization. The highest-grade gold material was found associated with a set of variously dipping felsic dikes which could be associated with the intrusive system. Silicification and minor quartz veining is noted associated with the structures and with through-going vein mineralization. The wall rock associated with these structures often shows sericitic and silica alteration.
Of note while visiting the property are the vast placer-gold workings immediately north of the project area. The source of the placer gold has not been determined and may be derived from intrusive bedrock within the Sandy project.
As can be seen in the district summary map (see Figure 1 above), the Riverside rock-chip samples confirm the existence of gold mineralization within the central part of the Company’s concession.
The scientific and technical data contained in this news release pertaining to the Sandy Project was reviewed and approved by Freeman Smith, P.Geo, a non-independent qualified person to Riverside Resources, who is responsible for ensuring that the geologic information provided in this news release is accurate and who acts as a “qualified person” under National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The rock chip samples collected by Riverside’s field crew at the Sandy Project were taken from 4 main showings on the western slopes of the property, with most individual samples consisting of composites of bedrock fragments hammer-chipped from 0.5 and 1.5-metre-long intervals across rock faces showing evidence of alteration and silicification. The highest-grade sample which assayed 38.8 g/t Au was a select grab sample of loose rock found within a small underground working which are believed to date back to the 1960’s. The one grab sample is not representative of the mineralization that was chip-sampled from actual outcrops, however, they do support Riverside’s view that the Sandy property has excellent potential for the discovery of intrusion-related gold and silver mineralization. All of Riverside’s rock samples were analyzed at the Hermosillo and Vancouver laboratories of Bureau Veritas where gold content was determined by fire assaying with atomic adsorption finish and ICP-mass spectrometry was used to analyze for 45 other elements. For quality control purposes, three standard samples were included with the batch of 71 field samples.
About Riverside Resources Inc.:
Riverside is an exploration company driven by value generation and discovery. The company has fewer than 65M shares issued and a strong portfolio of gold-silver and copper assets in North America. Riverside has extensive experience and knowledge operating in Mexico and leverages its large database to generate a portfolio of prospective mineral properties. In addition to Riverside’s own exploration spending, the Company also strives to diversify risk by securing joint-venture and spin-out partnerships to advance multiple assets simultaneously and create more chances for discovery. Riverside has additional properties available for option, with more information available on the Company’s website at www.rivres.com.
Certain statements in this press release may be considered forward-looking information. These statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology (e.g., “expect”,” estimates”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “plans”). Such information involves known and unknown risks — including the availability of funds, the results of financing and exploration activities, the interpretation of exploration results and other geological data, or unanticipated costs and expenses and other risks identified by Riverside in its public securities filings that may cause actual events to differ materially from current expectations. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
VANCOUVER , March 21, 2019 /CNW/ – NexGen Energy Ltd. (“NexGen” or the “Company”) (TSX:NXE, NYSE MKT:NXE) is pleased to announce the appointment of former Saskatchewan Premier Mr. Brad Wall to the Company’s Board of Directors. This appointment coincides with the retirement from the NexGen Board of Craig Parry , Chief Executive Officer of IsoEnergy and founding member of the Board of Directors at NexGen, who is moving onto the Technical Advisory Committee.
Leigh Curyer, Chief Executive Officer, commented: “On behalf of the Executive and Board of NexGen we are very pleased to welcome Mr. Brad Wall . Mr. Wall brings to NexGen extensive national energy policy, political and economic experience and has demonstrated a very strong commitment, results and advocacy in the best interests of Saskatchewan and Canada over his entire career. Mr Wall in his capacity as a director to NexGen is joining a team dedicated to developing a Canadian energy project that will deliver significant generational benefits to Saskatchewan and Canada and set new standards in responsible project development.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Craig Parry , one of our founding Directors, for his dedication and support during his tenure as a director. In his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of IsoEnergy, which recently made a significant uranium discovery, we look forward to Craig’s continued valuable contribution to the group as he primarily focuses his efforts on the exciting Hurricane Zone with NexGen being a significant long-term shareholder.”
Brad Wall
As the 14th Premier of Saskatchewan , Mr. Wall brings to NexGen’s Board political experience spanning over a 20 year period. During his tenure as Premier, Mr. Wall led the province to unprecedented economic expansion, strong population and export growth, record infrastructure investment and the first ever and continuing AAA credit for the Province’s finances. Mr. Wall worked successfully with the previous federal government to achieve nuclear cooperation agreements between Canada and both India and China opening up those civilian nuclear energy markets to Canadian uranium. He is an advocate for sustainable, inclusive economic development and provides strategic insight to the energy sector.
About NexGen
NexGen is a British Columbia corporation with a focus on the acquisition, exploration and development of Canadian uranium projects. NexGen has a highly experienced team of uranium industry professionals with a successful track record in the discovery of uranium deposits and in developing projects through discovery to production. NexGen owns a 100% interest in Rook I, location of the Arrow Deposit in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada and a portfolio of prospective uranium exploration projects throughout northwest Saskatchewan . NexGen is the recipient of the PDAC’s 2018 Bill Dennis Award and the 2019 Environmental and Social Responsibility Award.
Technical Disclosure
The technical information in this news release with respect to the PFS has been reviewed and approved by Paul O’Hara , P.Eng. of Wood., David Robson , P.Eng., M.B.A., and Jason Cox , P.Eng. of RPA, each of whom is a “qualified person” under National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI-43-101“).
The Mineral Resource Estimate was completed by Mr. Mark Mathisen , C.P.G., Senior Geologist at RPA and Mr. David Ross , P.Geo., Director of Resource Estimation and Principal Geologist at RPA. Both are independent Qualified Persons in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument (NI) 43-101 and they have approved the disclosure herein. All other technical information in this news release has been approved by Mr. Troy Boisjoli , Geoscientist Licensee, Vice President – Operations & Project Development for NexGen. Mr. Boisjoli is a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101 and has verified the sampling, analytical, and test data underlying the information or opinions contained herein by reviewing original data certificates and monitoring all of the data collection protocols. All other technical information in this news release has been approved by Mr. James Hatley , a Professional Engineer, Senior Vice-President – Project Development for NexGen. Mr. Hatley is a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101 and has reviewed the underlying the information or opinions contained herein on mine design.
Estimates of mineralization and other technical information included or referenced in this news release have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101. The definitions of proven and probable mineral reserves used in NI 43-101 differ from the definitions in SEC Industry Guide 7. Under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards, a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study is required to report reserves, the three-year historical average price is used in any reserve or cash flow analysis to designate reserves and the primary environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate governmental authority. As a result, the reserves reported by the Company in accordance with NI 43-101 may not qualify as “reserves” under SEC standards. In addition, the terms “mineral resource”, “measured mineral resource”, “indicated mineral resource” and “inferred mineral resource” are defined in and required to be disclosed by NI 43-101; however, these terms are not defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 and normally are not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of the mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred mineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian securities laws, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies, except in rare cases. Additionally, disclosure of “contained pounds” in a resource is permitted disclosure under Canadian securities laws; however, the SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute “reserves” by SEC standards as in place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measurements. Accordingly, information contained or referenced in this news release containing descriptions of the Company’s mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of United States federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Technical Information
For details of the Rook I Project including the quality assurance program and quality control measures applied and key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate the Mineral Resource please refer to the technical report entitled “Arrow Deposit, Rook I Project Saskatchewan NI 43-101 Technical Report on Pre-feasbility Study” dated effective 5 November, 2018 (the “Rook 1 Technical Report”) prepared by Paul O’Hara , P.Eng., Jason J. Cox , P.Eng., David M. Robson , P.Eng., M.B.A., Mark B. Mathisen , C.P.G. each of whom is a “qualified person” under NI 43-101. The Rook I Technical Report is available for review under the Company’s profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR (www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) providing details of the Rook I Project including the quality assurance program and quality control measures applied and key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate the Mineral Resource and is available on NexGen Energy’s website (www.nexgenenergy.ca).
Forward-Looking Information
The information contained herein contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. “Forward-looking information” includes, but is not limited to, statements with respect to the activities, events or developments that the Company expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future. Generally, but not always, forward-looking information and statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes” or the negative connotation thereof or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved” or the negative connotation thereof.
Forward-looking information and statements are based on the then current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about NexGen’s business and the industry and markets in which it operates. Forward-looking information and statements are made based upon numerous assumptions, including among others, that the proposed transaction will be completed, the results of planned exploration activities are as anticipated, the price of uranium, the cost of planned exploration activities, that financing will be available if and when needed and on reasonable terms, that third party contractors, equipment, supplies and governmental and other approvals required to conduct NexGen’s planned exploration activities will be available on reasonable terms and in a timely manner and that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner. Although the assumptions made by the Company in providing forward looking information or making forward looking statements are considered reasonable by management at the time, there can be no assurance that such assumptions will prove to be accurate.
Forward-looking information and statements also involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, which may cause actual results, performances and achievements of NexGen to differ materially from any projections of results, performances and achievements of NexGen expressed or implied by such forward-looking information or statements, including, among others, negative operating cash flow and dependence on third party financing, uncertainty of the availability of additional financing, the risk that pending assay results will not confirm previously announced preliminary results, imprecision of mineral resource estimates, the appeal of alternate sources of energy and sustained low uranium prices, aboriginal title and consultation issues, exploration risks, reliance upon key management and other personnel, deficiencies in the Company’s title to its properties, uninsurable risks, failure to manage conflicts of interest, failure to obtain or maintain required permits and licenses, changes in laws, regulations and policy, competition for resources and financing, and other factors discussed or referred to in the Company’s Annual Information Form dated March 2, 2018 under “Risk Factors”.
Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking information or implied by forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.
There can be no assurance that forward-looking information and statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated, estimated or intended. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements or information. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or reissue forward-looking information as a result of new information or events except as required by applicable securities laws.
Nuclear power related shares soared across the board on Tuesday in Hong Kong and China after Beijing announced plans to invest 81.2 billion yuan (US$12 billion) in four new reactors for the first time since 2016.
CGN Mining, a unit of state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) that trades in uranium fuel, jumped 15 per cent to 38 Hong Kong cents in Hong Kong. CGN Power, a nuclear power station operator under CGN, also climbed 3.2 per cent to HK$2.27, extending a four-day winning streak.
Nuclear power equipment maker Lanzhou LS Heavy Equipment soared by the maximum-allowed 10 per cent to close at 6.33 yuan in Shanghai.
Shenzhen Woer Heat-Shrinkable Material, which manufactures materials for nuclear reactors, also surged 10 per cent on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.
Industrial valve maker SUFA Technology Industry rose 7.1 per cent to 15.59 yuan in Shenzhen.
China Nuclear Industry Construction, a unit of China’s sole nuclear power engineering firm CNEC, jumped 5.6 per cent to 9.47 yuan in Shanghai. CGN Nuclear Technology Development, which mainly makes electron accelerators, gained 5.5 per cent to 9.65 yuan in Shenzhen.
The broad surge came after China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment said in a statement carried on its website on Monday that China National Nuclear Power (CNNP) and CGN plan to build two reactors each starting in June.
CNNP’s reactors are planned in Zhangzhou city, Fujian province, while CGN will build the other two in Huizhou city, Guangdong province.
The companies will adopt China’s domestically developed nuclear reactor design, namely the Hualong One third-generation reactors. It has been developed by CNNP and CGN based on the ACPR1000 and ACP1000 designs, derived from the French technology.
CNNP officials have hailed it as China’s independent innovation.
If advanced on schedule, the launch will end a three-year hiatus in China’s nuclear reactor construction and boost the country’s nuclear export ambitions.
Beijing did not approve any new reactor from 2016 to 2018, partly due to the slow progress in the use of advanced and safer third-generation reactors, including Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Hualong One.
The ministry said that if it does not get any objections on the environmental impact of the projects by March 29, the two firms may go ahead and start construction as scheduled. The projects are subject to other regulatory clearance.
As of January, China had 46 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of more than 45 gigawatts, making it the world’s third largest in installed capacity, according to the government. Another 11 are under construction with a planned capacity of 12.2GW.
Last year, about 3.9 per cent of electricity generated in China came from nuclear power.
China’s nuclear power development strategy has set a goal of 58GW in total installed nuclear generation capacity by 2020.
THIS NEWS RELEASE IS NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER OF THE SECURITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 19, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Riverside Resources Inc. (“Riverside” or the “Company”) (RRI.V) is pleased to announce it has closed its previously announced private placement. The placement was over-subscribed and the Company issued 17,488,875 units at a price of $0.16 per unit for gross proceeds of $2,798,220 instead of the 9,375,000 units ($1,500,000) originally contemplated.
Each unit consists of one common share and one whole common share purchase warrant (“Unit”). Each common share purchase warrant is exercisable into one common share for a period of two (2) years from closing at a price of $0.22 (“Warrant”). If, at any time after July 20, 2019, the closing price of the common shares on the TSX Venture Exchange (“TSX-V”) trades at a VWAP equal or greater than $0.45 for 10 consecutive trading days, the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the Warrants by disseminating a press release announcing the new expiry date whereupon the Warrants will expire on the 30th trading day after the date on which such press release is disseminated.
Management and insiders subscribed for 845,000 Units for $135,200 in total proceeds to the Company.
With respect to a portion of the funds raised in the private placement, the Company paid finders’ fees of $87,312 to Sprott Global Resource Investments Ltd., $20,076.80 and 12,000 Units to Haywood Securities Inc., 16,000 Units to Canaccord Genuity, and $1,280 to PI Financial Corp.
All securities issued pursuant to the private placement and as finders’ fees will be subject to a four-month hold period expiring on July 20, 2019.
The Company will use the proceeds of the financing to fund a focused drill program at the Cecilia Gold Project, additional project acquisitions and further target refinement on existing projects to advance towards new partnerships.
The securities being offered have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons without United States federal and state registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements.
About Riverside Resources Inc.:
Riverside is an exploration company driven by value generation and discovery. The company has fewer than 65M shares issued and a strong portfolio of gold-silver and copper assets in North America. Riverside has extensive experience and knowledge operating in Mexico and leverages its large database to generate a portfolio of prospective mineral properties. In addition to Riverside’s own exploration spending, the Company also strives to diversify risk by securing joint-venture and spin-out partnerships to advance multiple assets simultaneously and create more chances for discovery. Riverside has additional properties available for option, with more information available on the Company’s website at www.rivres.com.
ON BEHALF OF RIVERSIDE RESOURCES INC.
“John-Mark Staude”
Dr. John-Mark Staude, President & CEO
For additional information contact:
John-Mark Staude
President, CEO
Riverside Resources Inc. info@rivres.com
Phone: (778) 327-6671
Fax: (778) 327-6675
Web: www.rivres.com
Certain statements in this press release may be considered forward-looking information. These statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology (e.g., “expect”,” estimates”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “plans”). Such information involves known and unknown risks — including the availability of funds, the results of financing and exploration activities, the interpretation of exploration results and other geological data, or unanticipated costs and expenses and other risks identified by Riverside in its public securities filings that may cause actual events to differ materially from current expectations. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
First pass drill program returns encouraging results TSX VENTURE SYMBOL: FUU
KELOWNA, BC, March 20, 2019 /CNW/ – FISSION 3.0 CORP. (“Fission 3” or “the Company“) is pleased to announce results from the first pass drill program at its Key Lake South properties (Karpinka Lake and Hobo Lake projects) in the south-east Athabasca Basin region of Saskatchewan, Canada. A total of ~1300m was drilled in eight completed holes, all of which encountered variably intense hydrothermal alteration and six holes with anomalous radioactivity. Of note, holes KL19-005, KL19-006 and KL19-007, drilled in the northern part of the extensive land package, encountered the most significant hydrothermal alteration and paleoweathering, which are considered important factors for hosting high-grade uranium mineralization and will be prioritized for follow up. With $6M in the treasury, Fission 3 is well poised to continue to explore on its extensive property portfolio.
Winter program at Key Lake complete: Eight holes in 1300.8m in the Key Lake South projects (Karpinka Lake and Hobo Lake) – located on the south-east region of theAthabasca Basin, 40 km south of the basin margin in a geological setting analogous to Fission Uranium’s Triple R deposit at PLS.
Drilling intercepted multiple anomalous and narrow radiometric anomalies and strong alteration: drill holes located in the northern area of the property (holes KL19-005, KL19-006 and KL19-007) have exhibited the strongest hydrothermal alteration and paleoweathering profile.
Prospective for high-grade mineralization: KL19-005 intersected over 100m of strong clay alteration and faulted rock, which is interpreted to represent a major structural dilation zone. Such settings are important in the genesis of structurally hosted uranium deposits as they provide a pathway for large amount of hydrothermal fluid flow and can develop traps for localizing mineralized fluids. Most of the Athabasca Basin’s major uranium deposits are situated in similar geological settings.
Cree Bay exploration upcoming: Fission 3.0’s ongoing portfolio exploration program will now move to Cree Bay, conducting ground geophysics surveys to assist with the planned summer drill program.
Ross McElroy, COO, and Chief Geologist for Fission, commented, “The drill program at Key Lake is the latest step in the ongoing exploration of our prospective uranium projects. With radioactivity and strong alteration in multiple holes, we are looking at very encouraging first pass results that warrant follow up drilling. The winter program will now progress with a ground geophysics DC resistivity survey on our Cree Bay property in the northeast basin area, as we focus on developing high-priority drill targets to be tested during the summer exploration program.” About Key Lake South: The Key Lake area is an important historic mining district. The Key Lake operations is owned by Cameco Corp. (83%) and Orano Canada Inc. (17%) and hosted the former Key Lake mine, which produced 208 million pounds of uranium between 1975 to 1997 and is home to one of the largest uranium mills in the world. The Key Lake mill processed ore from the McArthur River uranium deposit, until Cameco announced in 2018 that McArthur River mining would be suspended indefinitely due to low uranium prices. The area is considered highly prospective to discover significant new uranium occurrences.
The 100% owned Key Lake South Projects consist of two projects (Karpinka Lake and Hobo Lake) covering 19,377 ha in 42 mineral claims. The properties are located approximately 40km south of the historic Key Lake mine. The projects are geologically situated within the extremely prolific Wollaston-Mudjatic Transition Zone “WMTZ”, notable for hosting the majority of the major high-grade uranium deposits on the eastern side of the Athabasca Basin. To the north, the Key Lake Deposit is hosted within the northern portion of northeast-southwest trending litho-structural feature known as the Key Lake Shear Zone “KLSZ”. The KLSZ continues southward through the Karpinka Lake and Hobo Lake projects. Together the properties cover approximately 50km of trend of the KLSZ, where a number of geochemical uranium anomalies have been discovered and where a network of EM conductors exhibit structural complexity including off-sets, breaks, folding and other geophysical features such as gravity and resistivity lows. These features are often associated with uranium mineralization occurrences. Key Lake South Projects – Drilling Summary Table 1: Winter 2019 Key Lake South Drill Hole Summary
Property
Target
EM Conductor
Hole ID
Collar
* Down-hole Radiometric Highlights
with Mount Sopris 2PGA-1000 Natural
Gamma Probe
Overburden
Depth (m)
Total
Depth (m)
Azimuth
Dip
From (m)
To (m)
Width (m)
CPS Peak
Karpinka
Lake
Key Lake Shear Zone
FOR-B-2220
KL19-001
79
-75
99.9
100.2
0.3
743
18.0
149.0
111.3
111.9
0.6
884
114.9
115.3
0.4
984
126.5
126.8
0.3
948
129.4
131.8
2.4
1431
FOR-2
KL19-002
274
-50
53.5
53.8
0.3
1344
2.1
101.0
79.1
80.2
1.1
985
FOR-B-2220
KL19-003
257
-63
217.2
218.1
0.9
1492
15.3
251.0
220.3
220.6
0.3
693
KAR-3160
KL19-004
277
-54
69.1
70.0
0.9
1302
37.6
125.0
KL19-005
86
-61
No anomalous radioactivity
39.0
128.8
KL19-006
90
-52
No anomalous radioactivity
57.0
101.0
KL19-007
86
-67
113.7
114.3
0.6
840
29.0
152.0
118.7
119
0.3
595
N/A
KL19-008
271
-55
212.3
212.5
0.2
550
7.3
293.0
TOTAL
1300.8
KL19-001 KL19-001 was an angled drill hole oriented parallel to the intermittent, weak, calc-silicate hosted radioactivity intersected in historic hole RO-01. The purpose of KL19-001 was to test the radioactive calc-silicate from the top of bedrock down to a depth of approximately 150m. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 18.0m down hole and was comprised of variably clay, hematite, graphite and chlorite altered schist, cataclasite and calc-silicate. A strongly hematized calc-silicate was cored from 126.8m to 132.5m down hole which returned weak radioactivity up to 590 cps on a RS-125 handheld scintillometer. No other anomalous radioactivity was intersected, and the hole was terminated at a depth of 149.0m in weakly altered graphitic schist. KL19-002 KL19-002 was an angled drill hole targeting the Key Lake Shear zone (KLSZ) approximately 950m south of KL19-001. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 43.0 m down hole and was comprised of weakly altered orthogneiss and calc-silicate gneiss to a depth of 72.9m. From 72.9m to 80.3m a strongly sheared biotite-garnet gneiss was cored with a central 5.2mwide graphitic brittle-ductile fault zone. The hole was terminated at a depth of 101.0m in fresh orthogneiss. KL19-003 KL19-003 was an angled drill hole targeting the weakly radioactive calc-silicate approximately 75m below that intersected in KL19-001. The drill hole aimed to assess the variability in previously intersected calc-silicate thickness and radioactivity with depth, and to test for parallel radioactive calc-silicate lenses. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 15.3m down hole and was comprised of a thick sequence of biotite schist to a depth of 182.5m where a sheared, graphitic schist was intersected. A weakly radioactive calc-silicate lens was cored from 222.2m to 224.5m which returned up to 410 cps on a RS-125 handheld scintillometer. The hole was terminated at a final depth of 251.0m in fresh orthogneiss. KL19-004 KL19-004 was an angled drill hole testing the southern extent of a large left stepping electromagnetic conductor trace ~7km north of KL-001. This flexure is interpreted to reflect a dilational zone in the KLSZ caused by sinistral strike-slip movement. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 37.0m down hole and was comprised primarily of weakly hematite altered orthogneiss. An intercalacted sequence of weakly graphitic biotite-garnet schist and cataclasite was cored from 42.7m to 66.9m down hole. No anomalous radioactivity was intersected, and the hole was terminated at a depth of 125.0m in fresh orthogneiss. KL19-005 KL19-005 was an angled drill hole testing the same large, left stepping KLSZ VTEM conductor trace as KL19-004, approximately 1 km further to the north. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 39.0m down hole as was comprised of moderately to extremely bleached, clay, hematite, chlorite and graphite altered orthogneiss. A strongly graphitic, clay and chlorite altered cataclasite was intersected from 85.5m to 94.5m down hole. Thin limonitic fractures in the graphite altered orthogneiss at approximately 78m down hole returned elevated radioactivity up to 200 cps on the RS-125 handheld scintillometer. The hole was lost due to ground conditions at a depth of 128.8m in strongly chlorite and graphite altered orthogneiss. KL19-006 KL19-006 was an angled drill hole testing the up-dip projection of the graphitic cataclasite in hole KL19-005. Bedrock was intersected at depth of 56.0m down hole and was comprised of weakly clay and chlorite altered orthogneiss. The drill hole is interpreted to have overshot the graphitic cataclasite which down-dropped the bedrock surface to the east (normal faulting). No anomalous radioactivity was intersected and the hole was terminated at a depth of 101.0m in weakly chlorite and clay altered orthogneiss. KL19-007 KL19-007 was an angled drill hole testing the down-dip projection of the structural damage zone and strong alteration in KL19-005. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 29.0m down hole and was comprised of extremely clay and chlorite altered graphitic cataclasite, variably altered graphitic schist, biotite schist and orthogneiss. Weak elevated radioactivity up to 160 cps was recorded on the RS-125 handheld scintillometer at 119.0m hosted in intercalated quartzitic and graphitic schist. Apart from the upper cataclasite no structural damage zone was intersected below KL19-005 and the hole was terminated at a depth of 152.0m in fresh orthogneiss. KL19-008 KL19-008 was an angled drill hole testing for the northern extension of the historic DD-Zone where previous historic drilling returned up to 0.78% U3O8 over 0.5m. Bedrock was intersected at a depth of 7.3m down hole and was comprised of a thick intercalated sequence of graphite altered amphibolite and calc-silicate to a depth of 136.8m. Below 136.8m, the hole encountered weakly altered to fresh biotite-garnet schist and graphitic schist. A 0.20m granite intrusion at 90.5 m depth returned elevated radioactivity up to 540 cps. The hole was terminated at a depth of 293.0m in fresh biotite-garnet schist.
Natural gamma radiation in drill core that is reported in this news release was measured in counts per second (cps) using a Mount Sopris PGA-1000 Natural Gamma Probe and a hand-held RS-125 Scintillometer manufactured by Radiation Solutions. The reader is cautioned that scintillometer readings are not directly or uniformly related to uranium grades of the rock sample measured and should be used only as a preliminary indication of the presence of radioactive materials.
Samples from the drill core are split in half sections on site. Where possible, samples are standardized at 0.5m down-hole intervals. One-half of the split sample will be sent to SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories (an SCC ISO/IEC 17025: 2005 Accredited Facility) in Saskatoon, SK. Analysis will include a 63 element ICP-OES, and boron.
All depth measurements reported, including radioactivity and mineralization interval widths are down-hole, core interval measurements and true thickness are yet to be determined. Cree Bay Exploration: In 2017 a ground DC Resistivity survey was completed in 2 separate grids centered on sections of strong conductivity interpreted from a historic airborne GEOTEM electromagnetic survey on what was then the Cree Bay property. Fission 3 subsequently staked additional ground to cover the most conductive part of this anomaly. The winter 2019 exploration work will thus continue to extend the ground geophysics survey over the anomaly, to determine the highest priority drill targets. The program will consist of a winter 21 line-km ground DC Resistivity survey and 2 lines of Moving Loop TDEM survey will be conducted during April to cover the most geophysically prospective area identified from a historic GEOTEM electromagnetic survey. About Cree Bay: The Cree Bay property, located 20km south of the town of Stony Rapids, consists of 16 claims totaling 14,080 ha and sits on the inside edge of the north-eastern Athabasca Basin. The property is located along the major SW-NE trending Virgin River Shear Zone. Locally the conductive corridor is bound by the Black Lake Fault to the north and East Channel Fault to the south. The historic Nisto uranium mine, is located ~7.5km to the northeast, along the Black Lake fault.
The technical information in this news release has been prepared in accordance with the Canadian regulatory requirements set out in National Instrument 43-101 and reviewed on behalf of the company by Ross McElroy, P.Geol. Chief Geologist and COO for Fission 3.0 Corp., a qualified person. About Fission 3.0 Corp.
Fission 3.0 Corp. is a Canadian based resource company specializing in the strategic acquisition, exploration and development of uranium properties and is headquartered in Kelowna, British Columbia. Common Shares are listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol “FUU.” ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD “Ross McElroy” Ross McElroy, COO Cautionary Statement: Certain information contained in this press release constitutes “forward-looking information”, within the meaning of Canadian legislation. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur”, “be achieved” or “has the potential to”. Forward looking statements contained in this press release may include statements regarding the future operating or financial performance of Fission 3.0 Corp. which involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties which may not prove to be accurate. Actual results and outcomes may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. Such statements are qualified in their entirety by the inherent risks and uncertainties surrounding future expectations. Among those factors which could cause actual results to differ materially are the following: market conditions and other risk factors listed from time to time in our reports filed with Canadian securities regulators on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. The forward-looking statements included in this press release are made as of the date of this press release and Fission 3 Corp. disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as expressly required by applicable securities legislation.
SOURCE Fission 3.0 Corp.
For further information: Investor Relations, Ph: 778-484-8030, TF: 844-484-8030, ir@fission3corp.com, www.fission3corp.com
Matt Gili the CEO, President, and Director of Nevada Copper (TSX: NCU | OTC: NEVDF) sits down with Maurice Jackson of Proven and Probable to discuss the value proposition of Nevada Copper, which is on target for U.S. production in Q4 2019. Mr. Gili, provides updates on the flagship Pumpkin Hollow Project, which hosts both an underground and open-pit deposits. We provide an overview on the supply an demand fundamentals on Copper, where a prudent speculator may position themselves to take advantage of the copper supply deficit.
VIDEO
AUDIO
TRANSCRIPT
Source: Maurice Jackson for Streetwise Reports (3/18/19)
Matt Gili, CEO of Nevada Copper, talks with Maurice Jackson of Proven and Probable about his company’s progress in beginning copper production by the end of the year.
Pumpkin Hollow
Maurice Jackson: Joining us for a conversation is Matt Gili, president, CEO and director of Nevada Copper Corp. (NCU:TSX), which is on target to U.S. copper production by Q4 2019.
Nevada Copper has a number of successes to share with reader. But, before you share the unique value preposition of Nevada Copper, Mr. Gili, for readers who may not be familiar with the supply and demand fundamentals regarding copper, please provide us with a 10,000-foot overview. Matt Gili: When you look at the copper fundamentals, we see a very steady and predictable increase in demand of copper, modest amount, 1.5% per year. We see the move towards electrification of vehicles consuming more copper. We see other things that are offsetting that, but overall, a steady predictable 1.5% increase in the global demand for copper. Where the story really gets exciting, from the Nevada Copper standpoint, is with regards to the supply for copper. What we’re seeing is a lot of restrictions in future supply. We’re seeing a lot of difficulties on bringing on a future supply and backed up by work done by Wood Mackenzie and others, we’re projecting that by 2025, the world will be in a supply deficit of upwards of 6 million tonnes of copper per year. This just really supports what we’re doing in Nevada Copper in setting up the next copper mine. Maurice Jackson: Now that we have an overview of the supply and demand fundamentals for copper, Matt, let’s discuss how someone listening may position himself prudently as a beneficiary. For someone new to the story, can you give us a very quick overview of Nevada Copper? Matt Gili: Certainly. Nevada Copper, who’s Nevada Copper? We have an asset in Nevada called Pumpkin Hollow. This is our chief asset. It consists of two deposits: an underground deposit and an open-pit deposit for copper. We’re currently in the construction phase for the underground project with production from that underground project coming online later this year. I think we’ll talk more about that later. Regarding the open pit, we’re currently in the process of wrapping up the prefeasibility study for the open pit. You’ll see that being published in April of this year. Then, we have a regional land package of well over 15,000 acres that we are looking at really understanding, really unlocking the full value from that land package. That’s really Nevada Copper, building a copper mine coming into production later this year, with a lot of expansion into an open-pit mine, as well as regional exploration. Maurice Jackson: Let’s provide readers the latest updates on Nevada Copper, as the company has been very proactive on a number of fronts. Please provide us with an update on the construction progress. I would like to begin with the multi-million dollar question, are we on track to enter production in Q4 of this year? Matt Gili: Yes, Maurice, we are on track to enter production in Q4 of this year. We are very proud of that. The team’s doing a fantastic job. We have construction activities both on surface with Sedgman building the process plants, as well as underground cementation, both sinking shaft and doing lateral development on our main shaft. All that’s coming together very nicely. We are absolutely on track for commissioning of the plant in the fourth quarter of this year. Maurice Jackson: As Nevada Copper is preparing for production this year, have you increased your staffing to meet the growing demands? Matt Gili: That’s a really good question and yes, we have. We’ve increased our staffing. It’s an operational readiness question that you’re asking. This is where I want to stress to you and readers that this concept of operational readiness is foremost in our thoughts and how we’re planning for really becoming, not just building a great mine, but operating a great mine. When you look at the staffing, so far, our staffing, by design, is quite modest. We’re looking at a total workforce of Nevada Copper employees of around 30. That is because this is our model, a very lean, efficient operation. We utilize high-quality, expert service providers as necessary, to make sure that we are operating very efficiently. Maurice Jackson: Is Nevada Copper still actively recruiting and if so, what positions? Matt Gili: Yes, we are actively recruiting. Most of our positions open are technical and specialist positions, and would be part of the management team. I absolutely encourage anyone interested in what we’re recruiting for to contact the Nevada Copper website. You’ll see the complete listing of opening jobs there, as well as information on how to apply for any of these positions if you’re interested. Maurice Jackson: Pumpkin Hollow is unique in that you have both an underground and an open-pit mine. Let’s discuss exploration and expansion potential. What initiatives is Nevada Copper taking to optimize the full potential of the Pumpkin Hollow project? Matt Gili: We are in the process of constructing the underground, which has a large amount of upside potential. We’ll really only explore that upside potential when we’re underground, after we’re in production. We really look forward to updates on that front in 2020, and the reason for that is very simple. It’s just much more efficient to drill out the prospective areas of the underground from the underground; the holes are shorter. It’s just much easier. That’s really where the underground sits right now, in a holding pattern as far as expansion potential. When you look at the open pit, that’s where a lot of great energy is going into expanding the open pit, understanding the open pit better, really getting that ore body knowledge to allow you to build a world-class operation. That is part of the PFS, which is coming out in April of this year.
That PFS will include the drilling campaign that we completed in 2018, the 26 hole drilling campaign. It will include those results in the resource model. That’s going to give you an even better idea of the full potential of the open pit. The real excitement that we have is with regards to the region itself, a large region, relatively unexplored, but with large amounts of historical copper production, as well as great physical outcroppings of copper mineralization. This is really where we’re going to focus our efforts during 2019, to really get a chance, now that we’ve tied up this land package, to understand what we have. Maurice Jackson: Speaking of the region, there was a regional survey conducted that led you to staking more land. Can you share the results with us? Matt Gili: We staked a section a land that we refer to as the Teddy Boy Claims. This is about 5,700 acres of land to our northeast. We are very glad to have this in our portfolio. The criteria for that selection was we brought together experts on this region and experts in copper mineralization. They identified that as a really prospective area and where we should be really focused on. We’ve staked that land, secured it for our ability to explore over the next several years. Maurice Jackson: Does Nevada Copper plan to drill the new area at some point this year? Matt Gili: We plan on drilling this year. I really haven’t put out the entire drill program for 2019. We’re still pulling that together and analyzing where to best spend the monies we have available for exploration. We would like to drill that this year. Some more prospective holes, really not an in-depth blanket campaign, but probe a few really interesting areas over there and get a better idea for the drill campaign. Maurice Jackson: It’s one thing to have tonnage and grade, but you must equally have astute business acumen to make the numbers work. Now, Nevada Copper is in discussions regarding an ECA-backed project finance facility to further optimize the balance sheet, as well as lining up a working capital facility and further offtake agreements to improve the economics of Pumpkin Hollow. Please provide us with the details. Matt Gili: You kind of said it all. I can’t really provide you with any more details, but I can surely stress what you’ve just said, Maurice. We are in discussions with this export, credit agency style backed project financing. This is going to provide us the opportunity to substantially reduce the cost of our debt service, as well as attract strong and robust financial partners for potential future open-pit developments. Something we’re very excited about and it’s part of really creating Nevada Copper as a world-class company. Maurice Jackson: Let’s get into some numbers. Please share your capital structure. Matt Gili: The capital structure is well defined. We have $8 million in long-term debt. We have $153 million of cash or cash equivalents. When you look at the financing package specifically for the underground, we’re fully financed, including the working capital facility to take us through operation ramp up. The inputs into that are an equity raise that we did in the middle of last year, as well as a streaming deposit with regards to a stream arrangement on the precious metals strictly from the underground deposit. We also have a $25-million subordinated debt package. Really a standby loan facility that we can use if necessary. Maurice Jackson: In closing, I have a multilayered question. What is the next unanswered question for Nevada Copper? When can we expect a response? What determines success? Matt Gili: I would not classify our successful completion of underground construction and bringing them in operation as an unanswered question. That is going to happen, and I’m very proud of the activities that have happened so far. The real unanswered question for the investors out there, is what is the true potential of the open pit? There’s been a lot of great work done, a lot of exploration done, last year. That’s all been incorporated. I’m really going to be excited when the PFS is released and we can share the details of the open pit potential with the public. They are going to be very impressed and they’re going to see the picture. They’re going to see what we see when we get so excited about Nevada Copper. Maurice Jackson: Speaking of the prefeasibility study, give us a timeline on that, sir. Matt Gili: We’ll release that in April. I’m being careful. I don’t want to be too specific. It will be in April of this year. Next month. Maurice Jackson: Mr. Gili, last question. What did I forget to ask? Matt Gili: Maurice, forget to ask? You’re always very thorough, so I wouldn’t say you forgot to ask anything. What I would say is I want to reiterate something that we at Nevada Copper have been thinking about over the last month. Unfortunately, for the world, the last month has been a month marred with tragedies, with risk and with unexpected events. What we’re really stressing, with Nevada Copper, is the risk management of Nevada Copper. We are an operation that is on private land. We’re not waiting for any permits. We’re not waiting for records of decision. We’re utilizing EPC contractors, who have that fixed price nature, reduced risks. We’re building a dry stack tailing facility. We’ll never have a wet tailing storage facility at Pumpkin Hollow. We’re doing this all with a proven, experienced team of mine builders and operators. Really wrapping that up, that concept of low risk, risk mitigation. We are going to build and operate the next mine and there’s very little risk to that execution. Maurice Jackson: Matt, if investors want to get more information about Nevada Copper, please share the website address.
Matt Gili: Absolutely, www.nevadacopper.com. We love to get your input. You’ll see our investor presentationsthere in our latest news. Let us know what you think. Maurice Jackson: For our audience, we wish to remind you that Nevada Copper trades on the TSX symbol, NCU, and on the OTC symbol NEVDF. For additional inquiries, please contact Richard Matthews at (877) 648-8266 or you may email RMatthews@nevadacopper.com. Nevada Copper is a sponsor and we are proud shareholders for the virtues conveyed in today’s message.
Last but not least, please visit our website, provenandprobable.com, for mining insights and bullion sales. You may reach us at contact@provenandprobable.com.
Matt Gili of Nevada Copper, thank you for joining us today on Proven and Probable. Maurice Jackson is the founder of Proven and Probable, a site that aims to enrich its subscribers through education in precious metals and junior mining companies that will enrich the world. Disclosure:
1) Maurice Jackson: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own shares of the following companies mentioned in this article: Nevada Copper. I personally am, or members of my immediate household or family are, paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this article: Nevada Copper is a sponsor of Proven and Probable. Proven and Probable disclosures are listed below.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click herefor important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The author is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. The author was not paid by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
4) This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases. Proven and Probable LLC receives financial compensation from its sponsors. The compensation is used is to fund both sponsor-specific activities and general report activities, website, and general and administrative costs. Sponsor-specific activities may include aggregating content and publishing that content on the Proven and Probable website, creating and maintaining company landing pages, interviewing key management, posting a banner/billboard, and/or issuing press releases. The fees also cover the costs for Proven and Probable to publish sector-specific information on our site, and also to create content by interviewing experts in the sector. Monthly sponsorship fees range from $1,000 to $4,000 per month. Proven and Probable LLC does accept stock for payment of sponsorship fees. Sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734. The Information presented in Proven and Probable is provided for educational and informational purposes only, without any express or implied warranty of any kind, including warranties of accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose. The Information contained in or provided from or through this forum is not intended to be and does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, trading advice or any other advice. The Information on this forum and provided from or through this forum is general in nature and is not specific to you the User or anyone else. You should not make any decision, financial, investments, trading or otherwise, based on any of the information presented on this forum without undertaking independent due diligence and consultation with a professional broker or competent financial advisor. You understand that you are using any and all Information available on or through this forum at your own risk.
Images provided by the author.
Ross McElroy the COO and Chief Geologist for Fission 3.0 (TSX.V: FUU | OTCQB: FISOF) sits down with Maurice Jackson of Proven and Probable to discuss the value proposition of Fission 3.0 and their Property Bank. In this interview Mr. McElroy provides the macro economics for uranium and how one may allocate their uranium holdings in a Uranium Project Generator with a Property Bank with projects located in high-grade uranium districts, with proven management and technical team that has a 20 year history of delivering success to shareholders.
VIDEO
AUDIO
TRANSCRIPT
Original Source: https://www.streetwisereports.com/article/2019/03/16/prospect-generator-in-position-for-uranium-turnaround.html Maurice Jackson: Joining us for a conversation is Ross McElroy, the COO and chief geologist for Fission 3.0 Corp. (FUU:TSX.V; FISOF:OTC.MKTS): A Uranium Project Generator and Property Bank. Ross McElroy, glad to have you back on the program to share the value proposition of Fission 3.0. Before we begin, Ross, I’d like to begin with some basic fundamentals regarding uranium. For someone new to the uranium sector, what is uranium, and where is it used? Ross McElroy: Uranium is really all about energy. The way we use uranium is for nuclear fuel. That’s basically the fuel that runs reactors.
Globally nuclear power constitutes between 15% and 20% of the electrical requirements. That’s really where the majority of the uranium is used. There is some uranium that’s used for strategic purposes on a country by country basis, more for the Department of Defense reasons. But really, the vast, vast majority of uranium is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Maurice Jackson: Provide us with some metrics on how abundant uranium is in the Earth’s crust, and correlate that to the average grade that is found versus the grade that is needed to define an ore deposit in a future mine? Ross McElroy: Well, uranium is actually one of the most abundant elements in the Earth. It’s kind of ubiquitous. You’ll see it throughout the Earth’s crust; there is trace amounts of uranium present primarily in volcanic and igneous rocks and sedimentary rocks.
On a deposit level, there’s actually a number of uranium deposits around the world, in every continent on the planet and in many countries. On a global basis, the average grade of a uranium deposit worldwide is around 0.1 to 0.15% U308.
Now, if you compare that to say, the deposits in Canada, they’re orders of magnitude higher grade in Canada. We’re talking orders of magnitude that are 10 to 20 times that of the global grade.
Although I’ve given you the average grade, most of those deposits at those lower grades, the average grades are really uneconomic deposits. We need grades that are generally much higher than the 0.1%–0.15% if it’s going to be an economic deposit. And that’s what Canada has. Canada has very high-grade deposits, so the economic metrics are just that much more attractive in Canada. Maurice Jackson: Now that we’ve identified uranium’s utility, what can you share with us from a supply and demand perspective? Ross McElroy: Well, it’s fairly simple to understand what the demand for nuclear energy is, in other words, uranium. We can just multiply the number of reactors around the world that are currently operating, and the known fuel consumption rate for a 1000 megawatt reactor is just under 500,000 pounds of uranium a year. If we look at the global reactors, there are around 450 reactors around the world. You can see that the need for uranium on an annual basis is around the realm of almost 200 million pounds of uranium. Maurice Jackson: How does the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan, fit into this narrative? Ross McElroy: Japan historically, up until the Fukushima event in 2011, was one of the main users on a country basis worldwide. Japan I think consumed almost 20% of the world’s nuclear power, in other words, 20% of the world’s annual production of uranium was used to run the Japanese reactors.
In 2011, of course, we had the magnitude 9 earthquake followed by a tsunami, and that’s what damaged the Fukushima facility. Interestingly enough, even with that magnitude of an earthquake and the soon-to-follow tsunami, the reactor still did not breach. The housing that surrounded the reactor was damaged, and this is where some of the radiation leaks came from, but the reactor itself actually held, and so the damage was actually very, very limited and manageable.
What happened is overnight, Japan shut down all of its nuclear reactors, in other words, all 52 reactors I think they had working at that time, went offline. That caused disruption to the supply/demand situation globally.
What’s happened since then is Japan is slowly coming back on. Japan’s alternatives for power are pretty limited as the country doesn’t have very much of its own resources, if any at all. It imports whatever energy that it needs, be it in natural gas now, in nuclear.
It’s important for Japan to be able to operate these factories that they’re running. I mean, it’s an exporting country around the world, so it does have high energy requirements. It also has the requirements for inexpensive power.
Japan is coming back on to the scene as far as nuclear power. There are eight reactors that are currently back up and operating, and 17 reactors that are in the near-term licensing for approval to get them restarted again.
I think the bottom line is, prior to Fukushima, Japan depended on nuclear energy for at least 25% of its electricity demands. I think by the time 2030 approaches, Japan is supposed to be right back up to those same levels. The country is coming back on, it has always been an important major consumer of nuclear power. I think we’ll see it right back to the equation again in the very near future. Maurice Jackson: Uranium, next to gold, is known as the other yellow metal, and here’s why. Ross, let’s step back to the bull market in uranium. If one was selective with the uranium holdings, they would’ve had generational changes in their portfolio. What was the spot price during the last bull market? Ross McElroy: Well, in 2002, uranium was around, I don’t know, about $15 a pound. This is on the spot market. That’s what uranium was trading for.
In 2003–2004, we really saw the lift off of the price of uranium. In fact, it peaked at 2007 to around $140 a pound. It went almost a 10-fold increase in the price of the commodity between 2003 and 2007. The peak at 140 didn’t last particularly long, but it had a slower decline until about 2008—2009, it stabilized, and then it peaked back up again.
Really, it was holding steady. I guess this is the point I would want to make, is that we were starting to see a steady state price of between $50 to $70 a pound, and then the Fukushima event hit that we talked about in 2011, and that really threw the whole pricing structure right out the window. We’ve been working on our recovery ever since. Maurice Jackson: What is the spot price for uranium today? Ross McElroy: Currently we’re about $28 a pound for uranium. It has recovered; we’re off the bottoms of $17, $18 a pound just a couple of years ago. Uranium is making its way back.
Maybe the important point here to note is we’re still at prices that the majority of mines around the world are not profitable. Even the lowest cost producers are really not operating in an environment where they can make money with uranium prices what they’re at right now.
What we’ve seen is that the supply is starting to be restricted as the producers are taking a lot of that uranium off market; they’re not supplying it to the utilities at this cheap price, because it’s not a working business model to lose money in the long run on the mining of the commodity.
We are seeing an improvement in the price of uranium, and it’s been about a year and a half in the making. It’s gone up from the $18 that I mentioned to about $28 a pound, but it certainly has a lot more room to move upwards even before we can start to get production back online to meaningful levels. Maurice Jackson: What is that spot price that companies right now, uranium companies I should say, for them to earn their cost of capital? Is the number around $60 for a spot price of uranium? Ross McElroy: I believe you are correct. We’re seeing prices that globally, they have to be in the $60 to $70 a pound really to bring on any meaningful production.
One of the clues that I look at when we look at the best uranium mines out there, the lowest cost producers, those would be McArthur River deposit in Canada’s Athabasca Basin in Northern Saskatchewan. That is one of the best uranium mines in the world, certainly the largest highest-grade operating mine. Cameco took that offline because of the prices of uranium where they were at, they weren’t making any money on the mining of this deposit.
There are some indications that Cameco won’t turn that mine back on into being a producer until the price of uranium is somewhat north of $40, maybe $45. Something in that realm.
I don’t have an exact number there, but it does tell you that if you’re going to even bring back the best of those deposits, you really need prices that are something of $40 to $45. As we mentioned earlier, the price for many of the other deposits around the world are probably closer to $60 or $70. You can see, there’s still lots of room for improvement. Maurice Jackson: The current price of uranium does not support the fundamentals. What correlations do you see today that may exceed the returns from the last bull market? Ross McElroy: Well, it’s sort of an elastic situation. I think that the longer that we keep depressed prices, yet the demand is still there and growing, reactors are being built, the need to fuel these reactors, that’s not stopping.
In fact, it’s growing. You have the primary suppliers of uranium, i.e., the mines that are not supplying it, the longer that the prices are low, the more rapid that climb will be in the price of uranium when it does correct.
I think there’s a possibility, as I’ve heard some analysts call it, a violent reaction upwards to the price of uranium. I think we’re going to see some substantial price increases within some short vision of time, maybe a year or two or three. Something in that realm that I think will be quite meaningful.
We’ll see what happens, but the longer it stays depressed, the more likely and quicker the rise will be when it does come. Maurice Jackson: Ross, you’ve provided a compelling case on the fundamentals for uranium. I know readers may be asking, how will all of this demand for uranium be met? Mr. McElroy, please introduce us to Fission 3.0. Ross McElroy: Fission 3.0 is a uranium explorer. This is a company that we spun out of Fission Uranium Corp. (FCU:TSX; FCUUF:OTCQX; 2FU:FSE), our larger company, back in 2014 when we bought out our partner on the Patterson Lake project, and in so doing with that process from that arrangement, we spun out our non-core assets, the more grassroots exploration projects.
We’ve been able to build up an exploration portfolio, primarily focused in the Athabasca Basin. Remember, the Athabasca Basin is Canada’s only producing uranium field. That’s where the McArthur River deposit is, this is where Fission Uranium has the Triple R deposit. There’s some fantastic deposits out there.
That’s what we’re exploring for in Fission 3.0. We’re looking for the next high-grade uranium deposit in the Athabasca Basin. Maurice Jackson: You referenced that you’re a project generator. There’s a lot of ambiguity regarding project generators. Please share the virtues and why Fission 3.0 took on the project generator business model? Ross McElroy: Project generators are really all about sharing the risk. In our case, what we do very well is pick ground. We’ve been able to strategically stake ground in the Athabasca Basin, we’ve made discoveries on two of our properties, the first one in the company called Fission Energy that we made the discovery at our Waterbury Lake property, and later on in Fission Uranium Corp on our PLS property.
That have been situations where we’ve had joint-venture partners sharing the risks, sharing the costs with others. To use the model, what we do is we use our brands and other peoples’ money. That’s really what we’re good at, that’s basically the model that we have.
We have a very highly trained technical team that’s exceptional at picking out high-quality projects. We attract other people who are looking to get into the uranium business, looking to partner up with a team such as ours and join us for the ride to make a discovery.
It’s really all about sharing risk. That’s really what the project generator model does. It’s our land, and we partner with good quality people that can fund a project, and that’s how they earn into it as well. Maurice Jackson: Do you currently have a joint-venture partner? If yes, who and what are the terms of the relationship? Ross McElroy: We have had joint-venture partners in the past, and very successful ones. As I mentioned earlier on our Waterbury project, we had a partner with the Korean utility called KEPCO. It earned in by spending a certain amount of money on the property each year over the course of a three-year period.
What we did with that, we were able to make a discovery, using the money in that project, we made a discovery, built up the resource estimate on there, and eventually sold that asset. That was how our shareholders were able to take advantage of our monetizing on the property.
I guess we could say the same at the PLS project, which we now own 100% of it, but that was also a partnership. We shared in the risk early on and in the money early on with our partner. We eventually bought them out in 2014. That was another example of a successful joint venture partnership.
Each one of the deals would be a little bit different from each other. It is a model that we think works very well. I will note that in our property down in Peru as well, we have a partnership that we’re still looking to finalize the deal. This is one where another group has approached us, said it’s interested in the potential of a property down in Peru. It will spend a significant amount of money having us as the operator. Hopefully we’ll make a discovery down in Peru as well. Maurice Jackson: Well, you’ve just alluded to my next question. Fission 3.0 has 18 projects in its project bank. Now, it is strategically located in premier, high-grade uranium districts in Canada and Peru. Mr. McElroy, introduce us to the Fission 3.0 Project Bank (click here). Ross McElroy: We have 18 properties in the Athabasca Basin. Our properties, we think that everywhere in the Athabasca Basin has the potential to host high-grade uranium projects.
One of the keys that we seek to identify are deposits that will be shallow. In other words, the closer a deposit is to surface, the easier it is to build a case that this could be a project that could go into production. It’s an easier mine to develop the closer it is to the surface.
Really deep deposits are challenging. They still exist, but they’re challenging. Eventually they cost more money to find and cost more money to get out of the ground. They’re just another level of challenge.
If you look at our 18 properties, they’re all in and around the edge of the Athabasca Basin, where we’ve had a great deal of success finding near-surface mineralization.
Our PLS project that hosts the Triple R deposit in Fission Uranium is a great example of a near-surface deposit. The mineralization starts at 50 meters below the surface, so 150 feet below the present-day surface is where the high-grade mineralization starts. That makes it a potentially open-pit deposit, which is generally low cost and gives you a lot of flexibility.
This is the sort of thing that we’re looking for in Fission 3.0. We’ve got very good properties that are in known mining districts, conversely, we have a good portfolio of ground around the southwest side of the basin where our PLS project in Fission Uranium is hosted, and also NexGen’s Arrow deposit, it’s all in that same area. We have the significant land package that surrounds that area.
We also have a good strategic land package in and around the Key Lake area on the southeast side of the basin. This has been, and still currently is the hot bed of uranium mining in Canada right now. This is the side of the basin where the McArthur River and Cigar Lake deposits are located.
McArthur shut down for economic reasons waiting for higher uranium prices. It was an operating mine up until about a year ago, and Cigar still is in operation. You’ve also got the Key Lake mine.
It’s a strategic area to have a good land package. We think there’s lots of opportunities in and around land in that area to make a new discovery.
And probably third for us is the land package that’s up in the northwest side of the basin, in the old uranium city Beaverlodge district where uranium mining in Saskatchewan first got started back in the 1950s and was the going concern back in the ’50s and the ’60s, I think there were about 52 operating mines up in that area, pretty small scale most of them, but still lots of high-grade uranium. That’s an area where we think that there’s still plenty of exploration potential.
Between all those areas, we’re going to be active and we’re going to be looking for the next high-grade uranium deposit in Saskatchewan. Maurice Jackson: Speaking of being active, is there active drilling going on right now in these projects? Ross McElroy: There is active drilling. We did drill in the southwest side of the basin. We were drilling in January on our PLN project. That project is just immediately north of Fission Uranium’s PLS project.
You’re really talking about the same area where the latest discoveries have been found, where you’ve got the Triple R deposit, you’ve got NexGen’s Arrow deposit. These are two of the best new deposits that have been found in the Athabasca Basin in the last 15 years.
We have a package around there called PLN, and we did drill six holes in there earlier this year. It has the potential to host another one of these fantastic deposits, so we are going to continue looking there. We see all the signs present that tell us that this is where we’ll make that discovery.
As we’re speaking right now, we’re drilling over in the Key Lake area that I described earlier. This is over on the southeast side of the basin, about 200 kilometers to the east of the PLS drilling. That is a program where we’ll drill probably eight or nine holes, just south of the Key Lake Mill and the old historical Key Lake deposits. There’s areas of activity there. We’ll continue drilling throughout the rest of 2019 on a number of our projects.
Fission 3.0 is active. We were able to raise some significant money early in the year, in late 2018. We’re going to be active. This is how we’ve been successful in the past, is by being aggressive, looking in places where people probably haven’t looked for a while or never even thought to look, and putting our technical team to work. Yes, you’ll see pretty good news flow out of Fission 3 this year. Maurice Jackson: Ross, let’s expand the narrative on the project bank portfolio and go south into Peru. What can you share with us there? Ross McElroy: Peru is a really interesting area. Where our projects are is called the Macusani Plateau, located in southern Peru, near the Bolivian border. The Macusani Plateau has shown at least over 100 million pounds in near-surface uranium deposits.
There’s a company down there that’s quite dominant called Plateau Energy. Plateau has been able to stake a lot and consolidate a land package in the area, and consolidated all these old deposits. It has amassed around 100 million pounds of uranium in these uranium deposits.
However, even more significant, Plateau made a discovery of high-grade lithium in the same area, and in fact, that’s within five kilometers of our southern property boundary on our Macusani plains. Not only do we have the potential now to host near-surface uranium deposits, and we have shown in fact that we do have mineralization on our property for uranium, we’ve mapped it, we’ve drilled, we’ve trenched and found high-grade uranium, but now the potential’s there for hosting high-grade lithium.
This is really a new dimension that we have down in that area, that we wouldn’t have had say, two or three years ago when we were last down drilling. You’ve got uranium, and now we have lithium. It’s a very interesting up-and-coming area as well. Maurice Jackson: Switching gears, Fission 3.0 has the right projects in the right place at the right time. But that’s only part of the story. Equally important are the people that are responsible for increasing shareholder value. Mr. McElroy, please introduce us to your board of directors. Ross McElroy: Thank you, and I appreciate that. We do have a very successful team. Our founder of Fission 3.0 is also the same CEO and founder of Fission Uranium, and previously Fission Energy before that, and Strathmore.
Dev Randhawa has been involved in this company right from the get-go in its first iteration back in 1996, and also heading up Fission 3.0. Dev is the longest running CEO in the uranium sector.
Myself, I’ve been involved with Dev 12, 13 years now. We’ve had a great successful relationship. We’re able to raise money, raise attention, put that money to work, make discoveries, and basically build shareholder value right from the bottom up.
This is the group that I think, we’ve been able to deliver in the past, and we’re going to be able to deliver shareholder value as we move forward in this much improving uranium sector.
A lot of the same players that we’ve had all the way along, still keep also in the Fission 3 group. Maurice Jackson: Who is on your management team? Ross McElroy: The management team is composed of our CEO Dev Randhawa and chairman. I am the chief operating officer, and also the chief geologist. We have maintained the same structure that we have in Fission Uranium, is the same that we have in Fission 3.0. It’s a fairly lean team. Phil Morehouse is president of Fission 3.0. We kept a pretty lean mean machine in Fission 3.
Don’t forget, we’ve had up until just recently in the last six months, it’s been a very quiet company, there hasn’t been a lot of exploration activities in the uranium sector. I think as we start to ramp up, with our level of activity increasing, we’ll start to draw more and more people into roles and developing roles within the company as we begin to be active, get out and start marketing the story more, get on the ground and back that up with real results, we’re going to continue to build our team. Maurice Jackson: Before we move on to your impressive technical team, in the natural resource basis, why is it wise to follow proven winners? Ross, you alluded to it earlier, you and CEO Dev Randhawa have a proven pedigree of success. How were shareholders rewarded as far as returns for their loyalty to sticking with your team? Ross McElroy: Well, if you owned the original company at the beginning, which would’ve been Strathmore Minerals, and you’d held on it to all the way throughout, over the last 20 years since about 1996, 97, you’d probably own about five different companies right now.
What’s happened is we’ve moved on to a new phase, we’ve made discoveries, advanced projects, sold different projects to different groups. What we’ve been able to do is form new companies, split off new companies in what they call a butterfly transaction.
You have shares in the new company, still maintain your shares in the old company, so you would’ve received essentially what would look like dividends in the way of different shares for five different companies since that time. The shareholders that have been loyal and sticking with us would’ve succeeded quite handsomely all the way along. Maurice Jackson: Your technical team is exceptional. I had an opportunity to meet them in the summer of 2016 at the site visit there. Please, introduce us to them. Ross McElroy: We’re very, very proud of this group. This has been the team we’ve had, the same core group of people with us since 2010. With that same group, we were able to make our discovery on the Waterbury Lake project, and then followed up in 2012 with the discovery of PLS. It’s the same group that is very core and important to us in Fission 3.0.
I do head up the team and the technical group, so I would be the team leader or chief geologist for the technical team. My right hand guy is Raymond Ashley, he’s the VP of exploration. Ray is an excellent geoscientist who I’ve had the pleasure to work with for over 30 years in this sector, so we’ve been working pretty close together. Definitely a proven mine finder.
We’ve basically held the same group of people together on the project managers, all the structural scientists, geochemists. We’ve kept the same core group together over the last almost 10 years or so.
To me, that’s really the key. You want a team that works together well, good chemistry with each other, the ability and the environment to think outside of the box. Really, the goal for each and every one of us is to responsibly make world-class discoveries. That’s what we’re all about.
We’ve got an excellent team. All the key people are listed on the website. You’ll be able to go there and see the roles of the various groups there in the technical team, but there’s about seven or eight of us that have been able to be what I consider the core team for the last decade or so. Maurice Jackson: Let’s get into some numbers. Please share your capital structure. Ross McElroy: In Fission 3.0, we have 142 million shares outstanding. We were able to raise a significant amount. We have just under $7 million in the treasury right now, that’ll allow us to be active over the next two years or so. Maurice Jackson: What is your burn rate? Ross McElroy: The burn rate, because it’s exploration, it’s pretty discretionary spending. We have $7 million that we have in the treasury right now, that’ll certainly carry us over the next two to three years of pretty aggressive exploration spending on our key projects. We can dial that kind of number up, and we can dial it back as conditions warrant. That’s the benefit of being in exploration.
The burn rate is actually pretty minimal. In other words, we run a pretty lean shop as far as the number of management and corporate costs. Really, the majority of the costs are exploration spending, which is really entirely discretionary. Maurice Jackson: How much debt do you have? Ross McElroy: We have no debt. We’ve not taken on any debt. Basically, the money that we raise have been through equity share offerings. No debt in Fission 3.0. Maurice Jackson: Who are your major shareholders? What is their level of commitment? Ross McElroy: When we spun off Fission 3.0 back in December of 2014, it was the same shareholders that were shareholders of Fission Uranium, were the same shareholders in Fission 3.0. We would’ve had a lot of the same loyal, large shareholders, including JP Morgan, even investment from others that we’ve had along the way. It’s been the same loyal group.
We have significant new shareholders now with the financing that we did back in 2018, which was led by the Sprott Global Resources Group out of California. I think we have some new players back to the game, but we have a lot of shareholders that have been with us over the long haul.
These are people that have a good vision of the uranium sector. They know that the good times are around the corner. It’s a point that we believe really strongly, and we think that the sector is improving a great deal.
This is how our loyal shareholders are going to be rewarded, by being a much better market with an aggressive team like Fission 3.0, and the new shareholders will probably be long term loyal shareholders too if we’re successful and able to build value for them as well. Maurice Jackson: What is the float? Ross McElroy: Fully diluted, we have 227 million shares. We’ve got shares outstanding, we’ve got options and warrants that we’re a part of financing as well, so 227 million shares out in total. We trade around 240,000 shares a day, I think that’s our average volume. Maurice Jackson: Multi-layered question. What is the next unanswered question for Fission 3.0? When can we expect a response? What determines success? Ross McElroy: Well, we are going to be successful through work. We know that a better market should buoy the price up of everybody involved in the nuclear sector. They’re starting to get some life back in the exploration world.
Really, we’ve always built value by our success. We’ve been successful with making discoveries. We now have the money, we have the team, we’re putting them to work. I would look to us as being one of the most dynamic uranium explorers out there. That’s something that I think people can follow, they can see our news release cycle, they’ll see how we’re marketing our story, and just look at the results. I think they’ll speak for themselves.
We’re looking at our projects, we’ll be active throughout the calendar year. I think the news flow will be very strong and steady. People that are interested in following the company will always see that there’s a continuing narrative out there. We want to take advantage of this and improve the uranium market, the fact that we are well financed, and we have the properties that we want to explore. I think there’s a very good opportunity for readers to look at Fission 3.0 as a sector leader in the uranium exploration business. Maurice Jackson: Mr. McElroy, last question. What did I forget to ask? Ross McElroy: I think we’ve covered a lot of ground here, and a lot of important ground. One of the takeaways that I want readers to know is we really do believe in the nuclear sector. We think that we have turned the corner and that conditions are improving.
If people are looking to invest in the uranium sector, I think it’s important for them to look at a group that has done it before. Your track record is very indicative of what your future has the potential to look like. I always find myself, when I’m investing, I like to back teams with a proven track record.
We have that in our group. We’ve got an exceptional management team. We’ve done it before. We’ve been able to capitalize on our discoveries by selling assets. We have a unique technical team that has the ability to make discoveries.
So better sector, very good team. Strong management. Those are the ingredients we need to be successful. Maurice Jackson: Ross, for someone listening that wants to get more information about Fission 3.0, please share the website address. Ross McElroy: Our website address is www.fission3corp.com. Maurice Jackson: For direct queries email ir@fission3corp.com, or you may call (778) 484-8030. Fission 3.0 trades on the TSX:V, symbol FUU, and on the OTC, symbol FISOF.
For audience, we’ve been proud shareholders of Fission 3.0 since 2014. Last but not least, please visit our website, provenandprobable.com, for mining insights and bullion sales. You may reach us at contact@provenandprobable.com.
Ross McElroy of Fission 3.0, thank you for joining us today on Proven and Probable. Maurice Jackson is the founder of Proven and Probable, a site that aims to enrich its subscribers through education in precious metals and junior mining companies that will enrich the world. Disclosure:
1) Maurice Jackson: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own shares of the following companies mentioned in this article: Fission 3.0. I personally am, or members of my immediate household or family are, paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this article: None. Proven and Probable disclosures are listed below.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click herefor important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The author is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. The author was not paid by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
4) This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases. Proven and Probable LLC receives financial compensation from its sponsors. The compensation is used is to fund both sponsor-specific activities and general report activities, website, and general and administrative costs. Sponsor-specific activities may include aggregating content and publishing that content on the Proven and Probable website, creating and maintaining company landing pages, interviewing key management, posting a banner/billboard, and/or issuing press releases. The fees also cover the costs for Proven and Probable to publish sector-specific information on our site, and also to create content by interviewing experts in the sector. Monthly sponsorship fees range from $1,000 to $4,000 per month. Proven and Probable LLC does accept stock for payment of sponsorship fees. Sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734. The Information presented in Proven and Probable is provided for educational and informational purposes only, without any express or implied warranty of any kind, including warranties of accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose. The Information contained in or provided from or through this forum is not intended to be and does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, trading advice or any other advice. The Information on this forum and provided from or through this forum is general in nature and is not specific to you the User or anyone else. You should not make any decision, financial, investments, trading or otherwise, based on any of the information presented on this forum without undertaking independent due diligence and consultation with a professional broker or competent financial advisor. You understand that you are using any and all Information available on or through this forum at your own risk.
Images provided by the author.
As we evaluate different sectors, we consider a wide swath of factors, such as what they’ve done over the last year, how they typically perform in this type of political and fiscal policy environment and even if the particular time of the year has an effect. To be completely transparent, we considered utilities and REITS, which this week broke out to record highs. The technician in us says the breakout should carry those sectors higher, in part because they benefit from the Federal Reserve taking a more dovish stance on raising interest rates. Our only trepidation is that if we start seeing signs of greater economic strength, traders might turn their backs on these sectors, causing the run to turn over.
Rather than talk about what we didn’t select to discuss this month (apologies…we couldn’t leave out that commentary), we’d like to advise investors to keep an eye on the energy sector, which is a collection of stocks spanning energy businesses like oil, gas, consumable fuel, renewable/alternative, services and equipment. For starters, March has historically been a solid month for the Energy Select Sector SPDR (NYSE:XLE), the benchmark ETF for energy plays. According to CXO Advisory data, XLE has been the best performing SPDR ETF in March since the SPDR ETFs began trading 20 years ago. So far, XLE is up 1.12% this month, compared to its average return of 2.9%.
Even better, XLE is also the top performer in April at 3.7%. If that trend will continue, the energy sector will add to a solid 2019 to date, where it is ahead by about 15% through Wednesday. That’s a nice recovery after energy was the S&P 500’s worst performing sector in 2018 with XLE shedding 18.2%.
In fairness, a lot of the gain has been at the hands of Chevron (NYSE:CVX) and Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), as the two oil stalwarts cumulatively comprise more than 40% of XLE’s weight (XOM: 23.36%, CVX: 19.72%). Both stocks are up more than 10% in 2019, carrying XLE higher.
Since printing $107 in June 2014, spot oil prices fell off a cliff, plummeting as low as $26.05 in February 2016 before turning things around. The clear culprit for the steep drop was oversupply, a problem that looms globally today. On the strength of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies going to great lengths to curb output and support oil prices, spot crude climbed back to a $40-$55 range for more than a year before making the next leg up in November 2017 to swell to a high of $76.90 in October 2018. Subsequently, another collapse occurred, driving oil back down to a low of $42.36 in December. Another recovery has ensued in 2019, lifting oil prices back to the upper $50’s.
While energy stocks are frequently bootstrapped to the price of a barrel of oil, we expect a little bit of a slingshot effect based on fundamentals, not oil prices, in the future. This is due to the fact that earnings actually grew in the energy sector in 2018, but the market failed to reflect the expansion. To that point, there has been no improvement in valuation metrics between current levels and when oil was bottoming near $26 a barrel in 2016. In fact, XLE trades at a slightly lower valuation than the 15x trailing 12-month earnings that it did back when oil bottomed in February 2016.
In addition to oversupply, there are other factors that have a choke hold on confidence in the oil and gas industry. Namely, regulation is a concern. Eldar Sætre, CEO of Equinor, Norway’s biggest energy company, acknowledged this on Monday at the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference, noting that environmental issues threaten the industry and that O&G companies must unitedly take a progressive approach to combat emissions and pollution.
So, with a large shortfall in demand versus supply and environmental issues that can’t be rapidly corrected, why are we bullish on energy? The answer is: “just for right now.” We’re looking at the sector for the next six weeks of so and we’ll have to see what happens come summer (the driving season) and reassess gasoline inventories to get a better understanding on potential market direction. What we are also banking on is history and the fact that the energy sector has typically been an outperformer March and April.
This dive into the sector uncovered many beaten down companies in the small or microcaps space that have languished with the sell-off in energy at the end of last year. It’s fair to say that energy plays abound in the microcap space, but we recommend sticking to those generating revenue, whether it be a producer like the three below or a services company like Profire Energy (NASDAQ:PFIE).
Broadly speaking, there is no shortage of companies that can be argued as value plays given depressed valuations as Wall Street questions the energy sector at the moment.
Jericho Oil Corp. (OTCPK:JROOF) (TSX-Venture:JCO), is focused on domestic, liquids-rich unconventional resource plays, located primarily in the oil-prone Meramec and Osage formations in the Anadarko basin STACK Play of Oklahoma, a region trumpeted by some as the next great U.S. oil play. To that point, majors likes ExxonMobil, Chesapeake Energy, Sandridge Energy and Chaparral Energy continue to put considerable capital resources in and around Jericho’s STACK acreage position. Jericho has assembled an interest in 55,000 net acres across Oklahoma, including an interest in ~16,000 net acres in the STACK Play. The Tulsa-based company recently released preliminary 2018 full-year partnership production, which hit a record high of approximately 297,000 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), up 33% from 2017’s total. Furthermore, Jericho cut operating expenses by 30% to about $17.00/BOE. At 42 Canadian cents per share, JCO is commanding a market cap of just $54 million.
Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. (NYSE American:NOG), which runs a non-operator model, also delivered record results in 2018. The company controls leasehold of approximately 157,000 net acres targeting the Williston Basin Bakken and Three Forks formations in North Dakota and Montana, and approximately 93% of its total acreage position was developed, held by production or held by operations. During Q4, production increased 117% over the prior year and 36% over the prior quarter, averaging a record of 36,258 BOE per day. Furthermore, lease operating expenses and general and administrative expenses were each down 26% per BOE from the prior year. For all of 2018, production increased 73% year-over-year, averaging a record 25,555 BOE per day. The company was profitable, generating net income of $143.7 million, or 61 cents per diluted share, reversing from a net loss of 15 cents per diluted share in 2017. Shares of NOG got more than halved from a 52-week high ($4.49) in October to an eight-month low at $1.87 in December. The stock is trying to make up some lost ground, trending back into the mid-$2 range as it closes in on a $1 billion market cap.
Lonestar Resources US (NASDAQ:LONE) is another that recently pumped out more oil than it had ever before in a quarter. Lonestar is an independent oil and natural gas company, focused on the development, production and acquisition of unconventional oil, NGLs (natural gas liquids) and natural gas properties in the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. The company has accumulated approximately 78,193 gross (57,491 net) acres in what it believes to be the formation’s crude oil and condensate windows. For the fourth quarter, Lonestar reported an 81% increase in net oil and gas production to 13,152 BOE per day, compared to 7,272 BOE per day for the three months ended December 31, 2017. The company’s record production volumes exceeded its guidance of 12,600 – 12,800 BOE/D and were 80% crude oil and NGL’s on an equivalent basis. Lonestar reported net income of $75.2 million during 4Q18 compared to a net loss of $17.6 million during 4Q17, while citing certain non-recurring items in the big gain. Excluding those items, Lonestar’s adjusted net income for 4Q18 was $5.4 million, or $0.22 per basic common share. Lonestar has reiterated its previously-issued 2019 production guidance of 13,700 to 14,700 BOE per day for 2019, which equates to production growth of 27% over 2018 levels. Last July, shares of LONE traded as high as $11.24 before diving to a low of $3.41 in December. Shares are currently trading at $4.27, equarting to a market capitalization of approximately $105 million.
TORONTO, ON / ACCESSWIRE / March 6, 2019 / DNI Metals Inc. (DNI: CSE; DNMKF: OTC) (“DNI” or the “Company”) is pleased to provide the following update:
Environmental Licenses
The Public consultation meetings for DNI’s Vohitsara and Marofody projects were held on February 22nd and 23rd.
DNI and the Office National pour l’Environnement Madagascar, (“ONE”), completed two days of technical reviews at Vohitsara and Marofody properties on December 6 and 7.
As per DNI’s press releases on November 8 and 20, 2018 the ONE must complete two site visits, a Technical review, and a Public consultation, both now have been completed.
The ONE group comprised of a panel of four people, from the following government offices;
ONE coordinator
Ministry of Mines
Ministry of Water
Bureau des Directions Régionales de la Population (DRPPSPF)
Additional government officials that attended the meetings.
L’Adjoint au Chef District
Mayor of the Commune
Two Counsellors
The President’s of both Marofody and Vohitsara
As part of the technical review, the ONE sent an official letter to DNI, asking for clarity on certain items. DNI has responded to all the technical questions.
DNI has entered into property purchase negotiations with selected Vohitsara land stakeholders required for mine development. Ninety-Nine percent of the people in the area want to see DNI develop a mine.
It was also decided at the public consultation meetings, that a committee would be formed to order to set the land lease prices, the compensation for crops and compensation for any residences that need to be moved. The Committee will be made up of representatives from the local villages, DNI, and government officials from the ministries of Land and agriculture.
Resource Estimate
Micon completed a site visit Jan. 28th through February 2nd, 2019.
During the site visit, it was realized that channel samples taken from trench 3, located approximately 500 metres north-east of the most northernly drilled holes, had never been sent to the laboratory for testing. From February 5th through the 8th, 83 samples from trench 3, and an additional 218 samples that had been misplaced from road cuttings and the drilling were split, and prepped, under the supervision of DNI’s consulting geologist and qualified person (“QP”), Jannie Leeuwner. Dan Weir, DNI’s CEO, and Raymond Borida, DNI’s CSR consultant, prepared all the documents for exportation. The samples were shipped to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada for assaying on February the 18th. AGAT has completed the testing on a rush basis, and the results are in the process of being compiled, by Jannie and Micon.
This additional data will be used in the Resource estimation.
Surrender of part of Mining Claim in Alberta
A new Biodiversity Stewardship Area (“BSA”)- Wildland Provincial Park, is being created in Alberta. DNI received $500,000 in compensation for the surrendering of part of permit no 930806412. Please see the link below for information on the new park.
DNI owns 5 permits in Alberta, numbers 930806406, 930806407, 930806408, 930806410, and 930806412. Information on the DNI’s Alberta permits can be found at:
This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements that relate to, among other things, the following: (i) the geological characteristics of the projects; (ii) the potential to discover additional mineralization and to extend the area of mineralization; (iii) the potential to raise additional financing; and (iv) the potential to expand and upgrade the resource estimate of the projects. Forward-looking information is subject to the risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the Company’s actual performance to differ materially from that expressed in or implied by such statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to volatility and sensitivity to market metal prices, impact of change in foreign exchange rates, interest rates, imprecision in resource estimates, imprecision in opinions on geology, environmental risks including increased regulatory burdens, unexpected geological conditions, adverse mining conditions, changes in government regulations and policies, including laws and policies; and failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals from government authorities, and other development and operating risks, and can generally be identified by the use of words such as “may”, “will”, “could”, “should”, “would”, “likely”, “possible”, “expect”, “intend”, “estimate”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “plan”, “objective”, “hope” and “continue” (or the negative thereof) and words and expressions of similar import. Although DNI believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements involve risks and uncertainties, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Certain material factors or assumptions are applied in making forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Additional information about material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations and about material factors or assumptions applied in making forward-looking statements may be found in the Company’s most recent annual and interim Management’s Discussion and Analysis under “Risk and Uncertainties” as well as in other public disclosure documents filed with Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Forward-looking statements are provided for the purpose of providing information about management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update publicly or to revise any of the forward-looking statements contained in this document, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
