Energy Fuels: I need your clothes, your boots, and your uranium mill.

A picture of the face of the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wears sunglasses and holds a gun up.

If, like me, you are a budding investor, you likely spend hours each night scouring the internet for the latest and best opportunities to make money. From economic revolutions instigated by futuristic technology, to trade embargos plummeting the prices of certain commodities, the world of investment is a complex minefield, which incites fear and excitement in equal measure.

In recent days, a commodity that has captured my focus is uranium; certain American economic news regarding it has intrigued me, in addition to the international surge of attention towards climate change. Following national news coverage in the last few weeks, it has been impossible not to notice seething commuters warring with Extinction Rebellion protestors. What could possibly cause smartly dressed commuters to devolve into a primitive mob? The answer is the increasingly intense climate change debate.

A colour photo of a crowd of colourfully dressed Extinction Rebellion protestors holding a large green banner stating: 'REBEL FOR LIFE.'

This event was one of many occurring in England’s capital in recent months. Additionally, Greta Thunberg’s damning climate change speeches have navigated themselves into the centre of international discourse. An individual wouldn’t be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize unless their cause was especially relevant.   

One of the key components of the raging debate is nuclear energy. Nuclear-based electricity production avoids carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has been suggested radioactive gas can cause health issues to workers and individuals from communities surrounding power plants. Furthermore, the disposal of nuclear waste is an even more controversial subject, and if one so much as utters the words ‘nuclear weapons’ they can expect a flurry of opinions to be launched at them more explosively than the warheads in question.

One of the primary materials involved in nuclear energy production and military use is uranium. In the wake of a tsunami striking a nuclear power station on the shores of Fukishima, Japan, the energy sector held a review on reactor designs and safety procedures. The resulting financial and psychological tidal wave had a detrimental effect on the industry, one which it is only slowly recovering from. As a consequence, despite offering vastly lower energy costs, uranium seems to have reached a political and environmental impasse and demand has plummeted. When combined with a lingering sense of distrust generated by incidents in Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986) and 3 Mile Island, U.S.A. (1979), and its association with nuclear proliferation throughout much of the 20th century, I was beginning to view uranium as a commodity too contentious to consider investing.

A colour photo of the dilapidated Ferris Wheel in Chernobyl's infamous abandoned playground.

However, after conducting my own research, I have concluded it is an area that can bring big returns to patient investors. The macro story is positive and encouraging. There are billions of USD being spent building new reactors across the world. New technologies mean small, more mobile reactors are being commissioned by countries who previously would have found themselves priced out. High profile individuals are vocal in their support, from Bill Gates to Elon Musk, and the vast scientific community adds additional endorsement to nuclear power being critical to the energy solution. Our current energy sources are not sufficient to cope with a rapidly increasing population and I feel nuclear power can be a green, affordable solution. 

…many of the world’s largest uranium mines are in care-and-maintenance mode.

The Uranium Cycle: I’ll be back.

Uranium is fundamental to the production of nuclear energy. However, current uranium spot prices remain far below what is economically viable to mine and produce ($23.90 as of 31/10/2019). Such market activity has depressed investment. Most of the (≈50) remaining uranium companies are struggling to stay afloat; many of the world’s largest uranium mines are in care-and-maintenance mode (1). These cold, hard facts lead prospective investors to one conclusion: why on earth would I want to invest in uranium? The answer remains the same as any other investment: it can make you money if you play your cards right.

I have studied numerous articles detailing different investment approaches to goods experiencing a low equity price. To me, the most attractive attitude towards uranium investment is the contrarian approach. After recognising where uranium is in its cycle, and the potential for an uptake in the future, this method seems prudent.

However, I can’t exactly go out and buy large quantities of uranium for myself; I wouldn’t want MI5 knocking on my door in the early hours of the morning. A wise investment will require choosing the right companies to invest in.

From an investor’s standpoint, there are 3 crucial elements a company requires to instil confidence in me, or any other investor. If any of these aspects are missing, I think the company is likely to falter and investment should be avoided. 

Investing in uranium: the secret recipe

The three ingredients are as follows:

  1. An experienced management team who have a proven track record for every process: mining, refinement and sale.
  2. Sufficient liquid assets to enable the company to survive until prices take an upturn.
  3. A genuine asset(s), not something purported to be an asset (such as a licence) that in reality is more restrictive to a company than beneficial.

Energy Fuels, the leading U.S. producer of uranium and potential producer of vanadium, has all three, but, perhaps most interestingly of all, it has an ace up its sleeve that is likely to be a real game-changer.

An Experienced Management Team

Uranium is an incredibly complicated commodity to work with. From permits, licences, safety, legislation, regulation, transportation to refinement there are numerous difficulties, not to mention the difficulty of mining itself. The sale of uranium is also far from straightforward, because the buyers are utility companies with long buying cycles and complex purchase criteria. If a management team has not already been through this process from start to finish, they are learning on the job with my money.

A colour photo of Energy Fuels CEO, Mark Chalmers.
Energy Fuels CEO, Mark Chalmers

Energy Fuels has a management team with an impressive résumé. Their CEO/President Mark Chalmers has been involved in the uranium industry since 1976. His vast experience would impart confidence to most investors. As a company, Energy Fuels has been operating since the 70s, and has nearly 40 years of experience mining and refining uranium. I find Energy Fuel’s established industry-related relationships and experience with uranium production/sales impressive.

Sufficient Cash

The brutal nature of the current market has created a tough environment for uranium companies. Murmurs from funds surround the need for price discovery: the spot price for uranium will need to start increasing before they will invest meaningful cash into companies again. It seems clear to me that utility companies have complete control of the timescale of any potential uranium price uptake. In the meantime, if a company lacks the cash to maintain their facilities, they will not be able to survive.

Handily, Energy Fuels has $40-45 million to see them through until uranium prices rise.  In a recent interview with Crux investor, Chalmers expressed a reason for investors to be hopeful of a price increase in the near future.  Energy Fuels and Ur-Energy are hopeful their petition to the United States Government under section 232 and the subsequent announcement of a 90-day Working Group may bear fruit.   

If the group’s report is favourable to the nuclear industry, it is possible President Trump could subsidise U.S. uranium companies via tax breaks and other federal financial boosts, thus allowing prices to rise and profit to be made for investors who climb aboard while prices are still low. However, despite Chalmers stating he would be “shocked” if the government doesn’t rule favourably towards the uranium sector, the judgement currently resides in a realm of definitive uncertainty; the group’s report may not be completed this year as other events take centre stage on the U.S. political platform.

Genuine Assets

A company’s assets are an excellent indicator of if my hard-earned cash will be worthily invested. Energy Fuels have a portfolio they regard as ‘truly unique.’ (2). They have ‘more production capacity, licensed mines and processing facilities, and in-ground uranium resources than any other U.S. producer.’ Energy Fuel’s 100% ownership of numerous promising mines across Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming gives them an excellent list of valuable assets.

Furthermore, in an interview with Crux Investor at the WNA, Chalmers explained the versatility of Energy Fuels. The company tries to ‘diversify,’ to ‘keep a strong balance sheet’ and ‘protect shareholders.’(3) The quantity of projects being undertaken by Energy Fuels helps reduce the risk of investment, as if one goes horribly wrong, there are plenty of alternative options to steady the ship.

The diversity of Energy Fuels is further exemplified by their status as the largest U.S vanadium producer. Vanadium has a variety of uses in engineering and redox flow batteries to name but a few. They also provide ‘low-cost environmental cleanup and uranium recycling services, including potential involvement in the EPA clean-up of Cold-War-era uranium mines.’ Investors can find their risk reduced because the company is clearly not a one-trick pony. Energy Fuels is not completely reliant on uranium.

The Game-Changer

When first mined, Uranium isn’t functional for nuclear energy or military use; it needs to be enriched to ≈20% for power and ≈85% for military use. The enrichment process requires the mined uranium ore to be processed in a mill. Energy Fuels own the only ‘fully-licensed and operating conventional uranium mill in the United States.’ (4). This means in the event of a uranium price increase they are the only company ready to go into production immediately. It also means that any competitor will be restricted at their leisure; companies will have to pay Energy Fuels for use of their mill, or face expensive shipping expenses to mills in foreign countries. Energy Fuels will also have control of the timescale of other companies’ uranium production. Chalmers has positioned the company strongly with an undeniable leg-up on the competition.

A photo of three nuclear cooling towers in action against the backdrop of a clear blue sky and a woodland area.

An Option I Could Seriously Consider

Upon conclusion of my research into the world of uranium companies, I have reached the conclusion Energy Fuels would be a potentially sensible investment. I don’t think any other American uranium producer comes close when the management team, business model, cash and bonus mill of Energy Fuels places them in such a commanding position. In the near future, I am likely to invest. I feel my money would be much better served waiting to grow with the sleeping giant of uranium than comatose in a bank account with less interest generated than a taxidermist’s dating profile.

If you see something in this article that you agree with, or even disagree with, please let us know in the comments below.

  1. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/uram-2018-ebb-and-flow-the-economics-of-uranium-mining
  2. http://www.energyfuels.com/
  3. https://youtu.be/uj1VG8V3igs
  4. http://www.energyfuels.com/white-mesa-mill

Any advice contained in this website is general advice only and has been prepared without considering your objectives, financial situations or needs. You should not rely on any advice and / or information contained in this website or via any digital Crux Investor communications. We provide paid for consultancy services for Energy Fuels. Before making any investment decision we recommend that you consider whether it is appropriate for your situation and seek appropriate financial, taxation and legal advice.

Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU) – Picking Winners & Identifying Losers

A conversation with Mark Chalmers, CEO of Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU) about what Uranium investment targets are going to need to have to make it in this cycle. Without contracts in place some Uranium companies will not get funded. So price discovery is important but that does not equate to immediate financial relief for some. Don’t be left holding that Uranium stock.

There is lots of money to be made if investors focus on the fundamentals and are not distracted by rhetoric by Uranium company’s that won’t make money even at $100 a pound. Pick companies with the right business model. Management teams experienced in bringing Uranium companies in to production and selling in to a contract market.

We discuss our investment thesis with several Uranium CEO’s. If you believe in the macro story of the Supply Demand story for Uranium then you need to know how to pick winners in this section. Not all boats will float on this high tide.

What is clear is that if the management team has not worked in mining Uranium before and produced and sold uranium in to the market, they don’t know what they don’t know. Cash is King – In a market short on institutional funding, some companies are running on vapour and struggling to find money and if they can, it is expensive and dilutory. Quality assets – the basics of mining are the same. Companies that can get Uranium out of the ground cheaply will do better than others. Investors need to understand a company’s ability to mine economically.

If you buy in to the macro story, we encourage Uranium investors to start looking at which companies are most likely to make it. It is apparent to industry insiders and veterans which companies and which assets will find it more difficult than others. We are listening to them and forming our thoughts.

Interview Highlights:

  • 90 Day Working Group Announcement Expectations
  • Importance of Management
  • Cash is King: Who Won’t Survive?
  • Who Should I Consider as an Investor?
  • Energy Fuels: Rebuilding the Share Price, and The Mill – A Means of Standing Out
  • The Market: When Will it Change and What’s The Plan if it Doesn’t?

Click here to watch the interview.


Matthew Gordon: Good to see you, albeit online. We caught up at the WNA Symposium in London last month. What was your take on it?

Mark Chalmers: Well it’s a good event. I really enjoyed being there again. And I caught up with a lot of people.

Matthew Gordon: There was a lot of excitement around the WNA Fuel Report as possibly being a catalyst for change. And we agreed at the time that it wouldn’t be. But the next catalyst for change is President Trump’s Nuclear Energy Working Group. It’s a week or so before that is due to announce.

Mark Chalmers: We don’t know exactly what timeframe the president will act on the report. Or what announcements will be made.

Matthew Gordon: There’s been various speculation as to what it could entail. But you’re not expecting it to focus necessarily on the uranium market, but the nuclear market as a whole. It’s hard to forecast what the impact could be for US uranium companies.

Mark Chalmers: There’s no guarantees, but I believe the working group gets it. I think they get it. I would be absolutely shocked if we get nothing here. The question is what will be proposed and what will the President decide is appropriate. It’s not very often you get on the President’s desk twice in 90 days. And I’m very proud that we’re able to do that. We’ve got this focus on the front end, the fuel cycle. The focus is absolutely required by the United States government, the largest consumer of uranium in the world, the United States of America is one quarter of the world’s uranium. We cannot go to zero.

Matthew Gordon: done a lot of interviews now with uranium CEOs over the last 3-4 months. As an investor, we’re starting to build up a picture of what the market looks like. I am a believer in the macro story in terms of the supply / demand story and what those numbers look like. I don’t have a sense of timing. I don’t think many people do. I’ve heard from 3 months to 24 months in terms of timing from people. I wanted to speak to you about some of the thoughts that we’ve had, and get some affirmation of some of those thoughts, if indeed you agree. There are lots of different companies at different stages and different positions financially, who may or may not make it, depending on how long this goes on for. But it was clear to me that you need three things. 1. You need a management team who’s been there and done it before. And I don’t mean mining. I mean getting uranium out of the ground, getting it to where it needs to be in terms of being able to process it and sell it and to market – that’s one. 2. Cash, because a lot of companies are running out of cash. And 3. Fundamentals of the asset itself, you’ve got to come back to that, because mining is mining. Start off with the management component with you first?

Mark Chalmers: Oh, absolutely.

Matthew Gordon: You is because you have been through a couple of cycles. You have produced. What would you say to investors about the importance of why the experience of having been through, not only a couple of cycles, but you’ve actually produced product and got it into market. Why do you think that’s important?

Mark Chalmers: Uranium is very unique. And it has a number of dynamics. When you start looking at uranium projects, it has the mining risk, and processing risk. It also has a lot of risk because it is uranium and that is obviously connected to the nuclear fuel cycle. A lot of people underestimate how all those things meld together and how one of those elements can really throw a monkey wrench into any project. When you look at other mining industries like gold and copper, silver, zinc, whatnot. They’ve had a lot more continuous operations over the years. They haven’t had the hiatuses that the uranium market has had. We go through these peaks and valleys. And the valleys, often are very pronounced and very long lived. And you lose a lot of that expertise and the knowledge. So there are similarities, but also many differences.

Matthew Gordon: Your last point about a lot of the expertise has been lost, because the sector has been in the doldrums for a while. People have got to make a living and they go off and do other things. I’ve spoken to only four CEOs who have ever managed to get companies into production. The rest are learning on the job. And as an investor, my problem is I don’t necessarily want them to learn with my money, because things can go wrong if you don’t know what is coming down the line. To coin your phrase, “you don’t know what you don’t know”. And that’s fine with someone else’s money, but not with mine. I just thought it was interesting with some of the conversation’s that we’ve had, it became obvious that these companies were just hoping that the market would come back and there would be enough money sloshing around. And some of these mistakes would get hidden by all the money that would be thrown at them for investment. But when things are tight, like they are now, if you don’t have the cash to be able to cope with this market, you’re in trouble.

Mark Chalmers: It’s pretty hard when these companies get to the point where they’ve gone to the equity markets multiple times. The share price continues to decline. The market just gets tired of the story. And so that’s why it’s important to maintain a healthy cash balance. And I think the one thing that is really a problem for a lot of these really small mining companies, juniors, micro caps, and it is pretty chronic in the entire industry, is that people get down to that last $100,000, or $1M and then they go out and try and raise money. It’s expensive or impossible to do. We’re not in that position. We’re a lot more complicated than a lot of these other companies. Other companies may have one project or it’s not constructed. So, the holding costs may be lower. But you just don’t want to get against the rope, because when you’re against the rope, people know you’re against the rope.

Matthew Gordon: I’ve gone through a period of learning about Uranium equities, speaking to some great influencers in the market, some fund managers. I’ve managed to speak to a couple of the utility companies. And I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago. It made me really nervous, actually, for the first time in this space. And it comes back to that line, ‘not all boats will float on a high tide’. They just won’t. I’ve been approached by a couple of groups to ask for my advice on a couple of junior uranium companies, who are struggling for cash and who are speaking to these finance groups to take them out. It’s like they’ve had enough. They’ve fought their fight and don’t want to go on, or don’t know how to go on. And that made me nervous, because it reinforced my thoughts. I’m a buyer of the macro, there’s going to be winners, but not everyone’s a winner. It’s clear because there are people struggling right now. And the longer this goes on, the more problematic it becomes. So, if this thing goes on another 6 months, I can see more than a couple of companies struggling because they don’t have the cash, or the ability to persuade a generalist fund to put money in. And the specialist funds have made their bets and they can probably see better than some of generalist funds, as to who is going to make it and who’s not.

Mark Chalmers: With a lot of these companies. Not only do they have no money, but they also have projects that are not proven. And in many of those projects need hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment, if not billions of dollars.

Matthew Gordon: When you start talking about things like getting some debt into the company to be able to be in a position to build out whatever it is that they’ve got, or be able to even pay for the Feasibility Studies (FS). Again, there’s no real plan there. Mark, you’ve been around the block. You’ve seen a few things and some of the companies I’m probably talking about. What’s your take on the market?

Mark Chalmers: I don’t envy them. I don’t envy them, because when you’re at the bottom of the bucket and there’s no water coming in to fill up your bucket, what do you do? And it goes back to, ‘there’s no shortage of uranium’. Uranium deposits out there in the world have not all been created equal. And if they don’t have any money for just daily operating expenses… In a lot of cases, those projects are not proven yet, they’ve never been commercialized. So, there’s a lot of technical risk for those projects. In most cases, it’s going to be far, far more difficult, costlier and take more time than they expect. And then you throw on top of that a new project. It’s going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. In most cases hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars. It’s a hole hard to crawl out of. And so, I don’t envy these folks at all. You’re at a huge disadvantage if you don’t already have proven projects, if you don’t already have projects that have the capital investments made. You’re way back in the back of the bus and when you’re in the back of the bus, and you don’t have any money, you’re not going to get up to first class.

Matthew Gordon: What I’m hearing is that exploration companies are some ways away. Certainly, not in this cycle from getting into production. So as an investor, do I put my money into those now because money’s cheap, but risk is high. There’re some companies with a possibility of being funded to get into production. But again, they’re not going to get into production anytime soon. The next 2-3 years, maybe if they’re ready to go today. But not many are. Would you talk to producers who are armed and ready to go?

Mark Chalmers: If you’re playing a sector like uranium, your safest bet is to play probably 2, 3, 4 of the better, more established companies, and you can do that in a way that manages your risk. We’ve seen the damage, or collateral damage, that’s happened to a lot of people back in about 2010/11 after Fukushima. With the deterioration in share prices. That hit us all. That hit Cameco, that hit Energy Fuels and everybody else. So, there is not such thing as no risk, but there is such thing as having less risk. And there is a saying, if you believe in a macro, which I agree a 100%, that you can play certain companies that have less risk and have probably the same upside as a lot of these riskier plays.

Matthew Gordon: You guys got hit, July 11th/12th with the Section 232 announcement. You guys got hit big time on your share price. You dropped off a cliff. You’ve recovered about $0.45 – $0.50 cents since then. What should that tell investors?

Mark Chalmers: That’s an example that certain events can clobber these stocks. I believe that there people were certain of a positive outcome on the Section 232. We thought, as well as many others, even that we talked to the government, that there was a high-likelihood that that was going to happen. It didn’t happen. We got hit, as did most others, particularly those in the United States. It’s a sector that in the up markets, it’s multiple bagger. In a down market, it can be a multiple bagger in the opposite direction. It is a tricky sector, but it still goes back to sophistication in how you make your investment. It shocks me sometimes that people come to me and say “oh, I’m getting in the uranium business and I picked X, Y and Z” and those are exactly the products that I would never have recommended to these people. Now, even in some of those cases, in the right circumstances, people can make money on those stocks. I don’t think there’s any absolute 100% the best plan. But I also think that a lot of people making these investments, they don’t like the super high volatility. And that there are just different elements of risk. And what people do, what percentage of their assets that they’ve invest in high risk returns, compared to what their ultimate horizon is and how they’re diversified, that is down to them.

Matthew Gordon: Can I just talk about your mill, because this the other bit, which it’s not one of my tick boxes, but it’s definitely a massive plus for you guys. It’s one of the only operating mill in the US. Is that right?

Mark Chalmers: Correct. If you go back like 30 years, there were like 35 mills, And White Mesa has basically been in good standing, has been completely operable since that point in time. There are two other mills. There’s a Shooter Canyon mill that ran for a few months or something back in 1979/80 or something, then shut down. And then there’s the Sweetwater Mill in Wyoming that ran for maybe was a year or two, also shut down 30, 35 years ago and hasn’t operated since.

Matthew Gordon: Looking at your mill, it gives you certainly optionality in terms of what you do. But for people without a mill, what are their options? How do they go about processing their ore?

Mark Chalmers: Well, they either have to build their own mill, or if in the region, they have to basically strike a deal with us to have access to our mill. And there are some examples of work that’s been done in the past with toll milling agreements or joint ventures. So, if you don’t have the mill, and you’re a conventional miner, you don’t have any options, you have to make some choices. I’ve had people tell me they don’t need to mill. They can ship it to China or to Brazil or somewhere like that. That’s farcical. It’s farcical. You’ve got the costs of transportation. The mill was correctly positioned for sustainability. And that’s a big issue that investors should feel comfortable that our mill has been around nearly 40 years and has survived these peaks and these valleys because of its flexibility. And, it’s been able to cash flow, and many times, even though the uranium price were too low to run it just for uranium production.

Matthew Gordon: What are your plans for the next 6 months if nothing happens in terms of the price discovery in the market or 12 months?

Mark Chalmers: If we don’t get relief through this government working group we will manage our expenses as tightly as we can. We’ll continue on with the macro environment we think is alive and well. We’ll continue pushing these different parts of our business that are less uranium price dependent like the alternate feed and the clean-up of abandoned uranium mines. Everybody needs higher uranium prices. This is really a critical crossroads that we’re at with the working group. We’ve survived the test of time. We’ll continue to survive the test of time. But it will be more difficult until uranium prices recover.

Matthew Gordon: And I keep asking every time I see you because I’m not quite sure what the answer is going to be each time.

Mark Chalmers: Well, I liked your comment that a lot of people have quit speculating on that. And I think that’s one of the reasons that these uranium share prices have been suffering. I think a lot of people are tired of speculating, including investors. Everybody seems to be wrong. You know, like you said, six months or two years or one year or whatnot, people been saying that…

Matthew Gordon: If you’re a fund manager, you don’t care if it’s one year, two years or three years. You’re getting paid your 2% and 20%. It’s okay. You can afford to be wrong for another three years, If you’re an investor like a Joe Schmo like me, where you’re putting your own cash into this stuff and you’re underwater and you don’t know what’s coming, you’re unsure. People have been telling the macro story for so long that you’re beginning to doubt whether that’s true or not. You jump up and down and go, hurrah, every time you hear someone talk about the macro story. But maybe you start having doubts. So, getting some sense of timing is important because it’s our hard-earned cash here we’re talking about.

Mark Chalmers: Absolutely. And I always say that whenever people have the most doubts, as is when you should be investing more. People like Rick Rule, it’s quite interesting to listen to some of his discussions and when he started getting interested in uranium. And it was the late ’90s. And he’ll tell you how many doubts he had. But then he will also tell you that he had multiple investments. So, I think the worst was like a 20 bagger or something. So, it is a very unique sector and frustrating. But when it comes, it comes and it comes big. And, there are there a lot of people that made a lot of money in this over the years and there is going to be a lot of money made again.

Matthew Gordon: I just want to make sure that people aren’t being misled and that they focus on the fundamentals, what’s important with regards to the company, assuming the macro is true. I want investors to make the right bets in the right companies rather than have their money frittered away by companies perhaps that are just struggling with G&A, let alone getting into production.

Mark Chalmers: There are companies out there, I won’t name names, that even if the uranium price goes to $100 dollars, they will not be successful. And I think that’s what you’re alluding to. You don’t want people to get in investments that will have no possibility of ever really making it. They might get a bit of a bounce off of an up market. But investing in broken business models isn’t a really good long-term strategy.

Matthew Gordon: I’m not alluding to, I’m trying to shout from the rooftops that in our assessment, having looked at these companies, looked at the numbers, done the analysis. I agree with you, whether $100 bucks or $70 bucks, there are uranium companies which are just not going to make it. They’re not designed to make it. They don’t have the people on board to show them how to make it. People need to ask the right questions.

Mark Chalmers: Being in the space, I have to be a little more careful when it comes to pointing out some of the shortcomings.

Matthew Gordon: I wanted to speak to bounce our thoughts off you. I’m not sensing any pushback. Appreciate your time and taking the call as well.

Mark Chalmers: It’s always a pleasure, Matt. I enjoy talking to you.


Company page: http://www.energyfuels.com/

If you see something in this article that you agree with, or even disagree with, please let us know in the comments below.

Any advice contained in this website is general advice only and has been prepared without considering your objectives, financial situations or needs. You should not rely on any advice and / or information contained in this website or via any digital Crux Investor communications. We provide paid for consultancy services for Energy Fuels. Before making any investment decision we recommend that you consider whether it is appropriate for your situation and seek appropriate financial, taxation and legal advice.

Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU) – Grabbing a Tiger by the Tail. Uranium Market Goes Wild

Mark Chalmers CEO of Energy Fuels tells us that the Section 232 Petition was an unwanted but necessary process. Speculation is abound as to what the The 90 day Working Group has been asked to do.

What exactly will be decided in 90 days? Will US Uranium production be used only for Department of Defence needs? What does “Domestic Uranium Production Concerns to be Addressed” mean?Plus just how many friends do Mark and Jeff have left in the Uranium community for submitting the Section 232 Petition and paralysing the contract buying market? Is Energy Fuels prepared? Will it use the White Mesa Mill to bend others to its will? Let’s see what Mark Chalmers has to say.

Click here to watch the full interview.


Matthew Gordon: Mark, we spoke back in April.  It feels like a long time ago, and a lot of things have happened, including the Section 232 Petition.  What’s your reaction to all of that?

Mark Chalmers:  I think that firstly when we thought that there was going to be a decision on 12th July, we were expecting a positive decision for good reason, and we didn’t get that immediate relief that we had hoped for, but we’re very encouraged with the fact that two new companies in Colorado, UR Energy and Energy Fuels, filed a petition that now is going in to a new review which is looking at the entire nuclear fuel cycle in the United States at the highest levels of government.  Probably the most extensive review done in three or four decades on the front to the back of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Matthew Gordon: We’re talking about the 90 day Working Group, which was announced in the Presidential Memorandum by Donald Trump.  It wasn’t what you wanted, but are you seeing that as a positive?

Mark Chalmers: Two small companies couldn’t tackle the whole nuclear fuel cycle.  It was too big for us, so we’ve focused mainly on the Uranium front end.  We certainly did mention that other portions of the fuel cycle were challenged.  There’s a number of positives here.  We thought we had line of sight to relief little lead within 24, 48 hours for good reason.

Some of the positives is the Secretary of Commerce said it was a national security issue.  The President agreed with that.  A remedy was put forward. We don’t know exactly what that is, but the report from Commerce will be public in this new review group that’s getting started as we speak.

Matthew Gordon: Donald Trump did say in June 2017, he announced an initiative to revive the nuclear sector.  And this memorandum does talk about nuclear fuel production rather than specifically Uranium.  There’s a lot of moving parts here.  It’s hard it’s deliberately hard for us to all interpret exactly what it means.  I think the language is vague, but let’s try and see what you read into some of this. I think everyone’s claiming a win here.  Everyone’s opinion has changed over time.  Lots of people are claiming wins here, but I want to understand what you think. 

Mark Chalmers: I think that the Department of Defence requires US produced Uranium by treaty.  I think that the memo itself indicates that the complete fuel cycle for defence and our power plants is challenged.  It’s broken.  We don’t have the ability to basically chase… We’ll deal with it in terms of a lot of infrastructure, but our ore infrastructure, but we do have ability to mine Uranium right now and run it on through conversion enrichment, and up into the more highly enriched products with our existing infrastructure.

Now with regard to the Department of Defence they have to purchase Uranium from the United States.  The utilities do not currently have to produce the Uranium from the United States and that’s the differential between it.  And as we know, 99% is being imported into the United States right now, but I think the key grabs from this review is, as we said, we started off with a focus on Uranium mining.  It’s now a larger focus.  The audience, the members of that Working Group are secretary level, Secretary of Defence, Secretary of Interiors, Secretary of Treasury State Department, NRC.  These are all the top of the tree.  It’s basically the President’s cabinets minus a few people like Homeland Security and Health and a few things like that. So it’s floated to the top here.  It wasn’t a no-no.  It was “No, we need more time.”  And I think that was a key element.  They needed more time.

Matthew Gordon: There are a lot of big names involved – Secretary of everything important that’s involved with this and that, but they’re involved in a nuclear fuel production review.  That’s the top line.  I think we’d all agree that there needs to be a lot of discussion around the reactors and subsidies that reactors are receiving.  Where does Uranium fit into that review?  Is it a big piece of this?  They talk about addressing concerns, they don’t talk about addressing US Uranium production in anything other than in relation to the Department of Defence supply.  So what’s your expectation of what this 90 day review’s going to give you versus the rest of the world?

Mark Chalmers: I think that the memorandum and the flavour is that it’s got to be a holistic review.  I think the other thing is that certainly we’re going to pull out where we can participate, is that again the United States consuming one third of the world’s Uranium products, at the front-end Uranium less than one per cent, but then we have conversion on standby.  We have foreknown enrichment. We don’t have ability to go to these higher ends, but at the same time – and this is the important thing that needs to be drawn out. Russia, China are building up their capacity which is well in excess of their requirements.  So here we are not being able to produce a per cent of our requirements, where our foes are going to be able to produce many times greater than they need, so that they can create a global business to take over the entire fuel cycle in the world, including the United States.  This is where the national security issue is very significant. 

There is a huge focus by the United States government on critical minerals which Uranium is one, and okay as a company we also produce Vanadium – which is a critical mineral – and so this is right up the alley of that initiative. So separate from the nuclear fuel cycle you have the critical minerals too.  So look, there’s no certainty on the outcome but we’ve certainly elevated it to a level that it really needs to be at. 

Matthew Gordon: But what do you want out of this review?  Do you want certainty around your position? Do you want certainty for the market?  Do you want to understand what it means for you financially?  What are the specifics around, what do you want from these guys?  They’ve had an initiative for the last two years, but I don’t know what they’ve been doing in the last tow years.  What will they do in 90 days which they didn’t know before?

Mark Chalmers: We’re still looking for that 10, 12 million pounds, up to 10 or 12 million pounds of production under contracts.  We’re not looking at Tirus.  Maybe you don’t call them quotas.  There’s other ways of doing that, but we want long term contracts.

Matthew Gordon:  Who from?

Mark Chalmers: Still a good position to ask for long term contracts.  We are not materially changing what we’re asking for in terms of the certainty and relief at the front end for the Uranium mining side of things.

Matthew Gordon: Who do you want these contracts from?  Do you want them from the Department of Defence or the utilities being made to buy from you?  What are you looking for?

Mark Chalmers: We want long term contracts from utilities, from he Department of Defence.  The Section 232 was a trade initiative. It was focused on trade.  Well now that we’re in this larger Working Group there are other potential fixes that aren’t trade related.  It doesn’t mean that the trade issue’s got to go completely off the table, but it opens up the opportunities on where this could go and how it could potentially be funded looking forward.

So it’s still early days. You’re right, 90 days goes by very quickly.  But we agree with the President’s decision.  Yes, sir, it’s painful, the shares got hit like they did, and not just our shares but everybody in the United States, but we actually agree with the decision and we think the President made the right decision by opening it up to the entire fuel cycle.

Matthew Gordon: At what point did you recognise what could happen?  You started a series of events.  I said to you way back then, I thought it was a really bold, big move for two small companies in this space to go for. But at what point did you recognise that actually this may not go the way you wanted it?  Was it literally the day the memorandum came out or did you know anything before then?

Mark Chalmers: I can’t say publicly but I had for good reason up until the last 24 to 48 hours that we had, very positive signals that we had a good chance of receiving relief of this material for us and the United States Uranium mining industry.  And as said, we had nothing to confirm that. Actually we didn’t have anything positive to confirm it until that memorandum came out.  There were rumours starting to fly.  They were not consistent with what we believed and were we were at, but when the rumours started to fly and people were saying, “Oh, I confirm this or I confirm that,” we didn’t know.  We did not know.  One thing that we do know, and as I said, this got into the White House.  I think that they basically run out of time when the topic of Uranium mining and the other parts of the fuel cycle started to convolute things in terms of really where they should be focused and what decisions they should make.

Matthew Gordon: So you made a statement to me the last time we spoke.  You said you’re a winner and you’re going to make this thing work.  I believe that you believe that and that’s great.  But do you think winners do everything and anything it takes to win?  And if you do, do you think the 232 is the right move for you then and do you still feel that now?

Mark Chalmers: If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would have done it again.  I think that 232 was the right step.  I think it’s right in line with… I said it many times that we will be aggressive but not reckless.  I think that from my perspective and again for good reason we got this thing very, very close to going across the line on our petition.  We’ve got the support of columners.  We’ve got this national security determination.   We knew it wasn’t going to be easy.  In hindsight it’s been more difficult than perhaps I had thought at the beginning of the process, but that’s life isn’t it? 

Matthew Gordon: I think the uncertainty is still there, but we can come to that in a minute.  Do you think you’ve made some enemies along the way?  Your share price has been hit.  Your US colleagues companies have been hit. Utilities weren’t for this move at all.  Who’s out there that’s friendly and who’s talking to you?

Mark Chalmers: I don’t have people that I consider enemies.  I think that the utilities, yeah, they didn’t agree with it.  Everybody has to vote their pocket book, and that includes the utilities.  I’d had a number of utilities tell me “Mark, t’s not personal.  We understand why you did what you did.”  And to this day, with all the number of shareholders I have talked to, yeah, sure, they saw the shares drop by 40% and so.  37% on the day.  No, I’m not happy with that.   No, they’re not happy with that, but I have not had an angry shareholder.

Now, after this video maybe somebody’s angry.  They want to come talk to me, and I welcome them to call me. I welcome them to call me.  I’m an approachable guy and I’m looking for big opportunities for our shareholders, not status quo.

Matthew Gordon: Do you think you’re going to be punished by utilities as a consequence of this?  I know you just said, “Look, it’s not personal,” but will that be reflected in terms of their buying behaviour with contracts going forward?

Mark Chalmers: Absolutely not. There’s a lot of rumours and as I said, when you look at the other Uranium producers in the world, you look at Canada, if you look at Australia – if they had the opportunity to take in a Section 232 route, I will bet you they would have taken that route themselves if they had that opportunity. 

Matthew Gordon: With regards to the narrative, I remember talking with you, I’ve talked to a lot of CEOs of other Uranium companies, talked to funds, talked to a couple of utilities – the narrative obviously knowing what we now know with regards to President Trump’s memorandum, the narrative’s changing.  Everyone’s claiming a win.  Everyone’s claiming that they called it right.   Who do you think actually called it right in all this?  I know you said it wasn’t the outcome that you wanted, but did you see anyone get this right?

Mark Chalmers: You’re right where a lot of people are saying, “Oh, it’s a win for me.”  Everyone says it’s a win and here we are still waiting another 90 days.  I think we’ve called it right because we brought to the attention of the government a fundamental flaw in our fuel cycle and in our national defence with the front end of the fuel cycle.  So I think that in the absence of us filing our Section 232, where would be today with regard to the focus on the fuel cycle?  I think we did what we needed to do.  As I said, I don’t regret doing what we did and there still is uncertainty – and even on the day, I said on the day the rumours start flying, I kept saying to people around me, “This is not consistent with President Trump.  It is not consistent for him to say, “”No, I’m not doing anything.”  So when the memorandum came out, I couldn’t accept that what was in that memorandum was consistent with what I would expect from President Trump and his administration that they would need to look at this in a more detailed way.

Matthew Gordon: He didn’t say no.  He didn’t say yes.  He just bought some time.  It’s part of a much bigger review.  Do you think that review is going to finish in 90 days or probably a bit less than that now?

Mark Chalmers: You’re right, it’s a large review.  All I can say is in the 232 process, they met all of their time constraints.  They were on the day on just about everything that they did.  Now this is a bigger group…

Matthew Gordon: With bigger collective problems, Mark.  You’ve got the utilities with a multitude of different energy sources as well as nuclear.  You’ve got the gas guys.  You’ve got big lobbyists who have been fighting the good fight and they’ve got to appease all of those people.  I guess there’s room for everyone.  It’s a question of who gets what slice of the pie. 

Mark Chalmers: I think we’ve got a tiger by the tail.  There’s no question.  But not all these things have to be solved in a day, and they can’t be solved in a day.  I think that the key things that they need to look at is a phasing of things.  You take further down in the enrichment cycle of the fuel chain.  You’re not going to solve that in a week or month or six months, but we do have things like the conversion and the Uranium mining that can be solved quicker because a lot of the infrastructure…  Well, the infrastructure, a lot of it is in place, a lot of the people are in place. 

Matthew Gordon: Who’s problem is that?  You’re saying they can look at that, but that’s the problem of the company, isn’t it? Why does the review become responsible for getting those companies up and running again?  They can’t affect price other than give uncertainty to utility companies to be able to put some contracts in place.  Is that the way it works?

Mark Chalmers: The one complication with the United States compared to Russia and China, is the US basically privatised the vast majority of the front end of the fuel cycle.  There is no nuclear fuel cycle in the world that doesn’t have government support in virtually every step of that fuel cycle, and that goes with the Russians and that goes with the Chinese.

I think what we have found that privatising the front end of the fuel cycle doesn’t work.  It’s that simple.  So the government has the ability to facilitate in different ways if they think it is a priority of national significance.  It is complicated, as I’ve said, because we’re now not just tied to the Section 232, there are other aspects of it.  If you look at it right now, many of the nuclear utilities have received and are receiving substantial support in the various states that they operate in, substantial support.  We’re talking 100, 150, 200 million dollars per year for two or three reactors. 

Matthew Gordon: That’s at a state level, not a federal level.  Is that right?

Mark Chalmers: That’s the state level.  Look, we’re not trying to unduly burden the fuel cycle with our costs, but I can tell you that when you look at what we asked for, what we’re asking for is very, very small in the scheme of the fuel cycle.  We’re small businesses.  It’s very small.

Matthew Gordon:  What are you looking for?

Mark Chalmers: All of this is taken out of context on what the true costs are.  Now the other thing that’s taken out of context with the true cost is what is the fair value of a pound of Uranium produced by westerners?  It’s not the current $25 per pound of the spot price.  That is a depressed what we call happier pound.  So there’s a lot of ways the maths can be distorted here.

Matthew Gordon: What are you after?  They can help you in different ways.  What are those ways that you would like them to help you with?  Is it around permitting and licencing or is it subsidies?

Mark Chalmers: The main thing we want is contracts.  This is where we haven’t changed our position.  We want contracts.  We want to buy American.  Certainly the Department of Defence has to buy US Uranium.  We’ve got government reactors.  There’re different ways that it can be incentivised.  In the case of our company, we’re unique.  We have Vanadium.  We also do recycling of low level products.  We do one to three reactors a year recycling and we also have been pursing clean up of a nation. 

Matthew Gordon: You’ve got a lot going on.

Mark Chalmers: USD$3.7 billion in trust.

Matthew Gordon: You’re at the front line.  With regards to whether it be state or federal level, subsidies or a bifurcated market or permitting made easier, what precisely do you need?  You’re a producer.  You’ve got a lot of moving parts, a lot of assets.  You’ve got explorers.  They’re all going to need different things because they’re at different stages of evolution.  You’re going to focus on your company. What is it that you want for you and what do you think explorers are going to need? 

Mark Chalmers: There’s a difference.  We have a lot of critical infrastructure that is constructed, that is manned, is operable.

Matthew Gordon: And it’s costing you money today, right?

Mark Chalmers: We need to get money into our coffers and that can happen in a variety of ways.  As I said, I prefer long term contracts.  It’s important to keep producing.  Uranium is a very unique commodity, the technical skills required to find it, to develop it, to process it, are rare to find and if we don’t get supporters to preserve and continue at some level, we will lose those skills.

Now, just for an example, even with the Department of Defence when it comes to things like submarines, aircraft, they continue to build at a certain level just to maintain critical infrastructure and the skills that are necessary for that infrastructure to operate efficiently.  Those are themes that could be followed. And as I said, the one distortion that happens is people assume that Uranium is going to be available forever for $25 a pound and that’s not the case.  Cameco will be gone and the Uranium production in Australia will largely be gone, perhaps with the exception of Olympic Dam.  We need a higher price.  So you’ve got to kind of differentiate between the state-owned enterprises and the western production.  Western production needs to be at $50 a pound or greater to continue. 

Matthew Gordon: But that is determined by the market usually, right? Are you saying that the Government needs to step in and affect price or pay the differential between whatever spot is. I know you want a contract, but you want a contract at +$50.  If the market isn’t at $50, how does the state or federal government help you?

Mark Chalmers: It’s probably a combination of things.  It could be a combination of the Government, it could be a combination of the utilities wearing some of that load.  They’re receiving subsidies as we speak.  We’re not asking for something that others aren’t already receiving here.  We know there’s a challenge, but you’ve got to get back to what I said before – we are the largest consumer in the world and we have zero capability right now.  Is that where we want to be? Now some people will say “I’m fine with that” and I say, “No I’m not fine with it” and I think the average person in DC understands this.

Matthew Gordon: 24 of 60 operating nuclear reactors in the US will struggle to cover their operating costs this time next year.  So they need help and they are getting help now, and you’re saying “I just want a piece of that”.

Mark Chalmers: Correct.  I talked about these state-owned enterprises in Russia and China.  If they didn’t have state support, would they be able to function from the beginning to the end of the fuel cycle and the answer is “no”. 

Matthew Gordon: I just want to ask you about your views about Cameco’s conference call press release last week.  What’s your read on what they had to say?  It hasn’t really moved the market; it hasn’t done anything for equities or buying, so what’s your take on it?

Mark Chalmers: I think my take on Cameco is that they’re challenged right now too and losing, or getting a very small settlement on this lawsuit that they had, it hurt them big time.  I think they’re just reiterating what I’m saying – that they need higher prices or they’re not going to restart. What they’re not saying is if their contracts roll off they’re looking at serious outcomes with Sagar Lake.  Sagar Lake has also got a finite life on it, so it doesn’t have 20 years of life. 

Look, I think Cameco is a great company and I know the management of Cameco.  I think they’re doing the right things and I respect them, and I always say that to anyone that asks me about the Uranium sector.  I say “you’ve got to own some Cameco”.  But, they’re also very challenged right now too, and I think that they recognise the importance of western world production.  I think they kind of suddenly talk about that and they recognise things like critical minerals and having those capabilities. 

So, I guess what I want to say is: they’re doing the right things, they’re challenged like everybody else but, in their benefit right now, they’ve got two things helping them – mainly their longer-term contracts and they’re also benefitting from the foreign exchange right now too.

Matthew Gordon:  We need to remember the macroeconomics for this industry, the Uranium industry, nothing’s changed.  It doesn’t matter Section 232 didn’t give you what you wanted.  It almost doesn’t matter what came out of the 90 day Working Group, because the fundamentals don’t change.  There’s a massive supply/demand gap and it’s getting bigger by the day.  Billions of dollars need spending on infrastructure, so I think people need to just remember that.

Mark Chalmers: I just want to say something else too.  That’s absolutely right and the fundamentals are what the fundamentals are, and everybody kind of over-focuses on Section 232.  I told our shareholders that, “Look, I asked for Section 232 because it is bigger than that.  But I understand why people did bias for Section 232 because it was looking…

Matthew Gordon: Everyone wants that catalyst moment. It’s Section 232, it’s their Working Group, it’s the WNA.  When you’re down, you reach for anything you can.  But I’d say people need to think just a little bit longer than that and it doesn’t matter if it takes another six months, another nine months, another 12 months – it’s coming and it’ll come quickly when it goes.

Let’s talk about your mill. You said the mill is something you can use to leverage your position as the US’s number one Uranium producer.  You think that people will have to come to you and there will be discussions to be had at that point.  Is it one of three potential working mills in the US?

Mark Chalmers: Well, look it’s the only operable, manned producing facility.  There are two other facilities, but both of them haven’t ran for like 40 years.  They’ve been partially reclaimed or, in some instances, people have taken a lot of equipment out, so they’re very dilapidated and not able to come online in quick order.

Matthew Gordon: So that’s good for you. But what does it mean for the other players in the US market?  Do you feel that some of them are in a slightly weaker position?  Are you looking at mergers?  Are you looking at takeovers or JVs? 

Mark Chalmers: The mill puts us in a strong position, particularly with the conventional miners, particularly if anybody wants to produce Vanadium or some of this recycle.  There was a phrase that was used 40 years ago and it says: “he who has the mill owns the district”.  Well, then there was something like 25 mills out the in the United States; well today there is one that operates and functions.  So, you could use that phrase 40 years ago, well you could certainly use it now when you’re the only one who can actually process Uranium today.

Matthew Gordon: What are you going to do? 

Mark Chalmers: The strategy is the same.  We need higher prices for conventional mining.  We’ll always give the main priority for that to be out mines, our ore.  We’re still producing Vanadium right now.  We’re actually shipping low grade ore from a mine that’s on standby in New Mexico right now.  So we’re actually doing some recycling of low grade ores from idle Uranium mines.  We’ll continue to use all those various arrows to improve our cash-flow optionality. 

And that is why that mill survived, because it has that ability to do these side businesses when the price of Uranium was low.  When it comes to others who want to use the mill, we’ll consider that on a case-by-case basis.  It is our facility, it’s probably worth $300-$400M if you replaced it.  We’ve got 70 or 80 people there right now working there.  We’re not going to do it for free. If we consider processing somebody’s ore, we want a fair margin on that and that is entirely reasonable.

Matthew Gordon: You can push that margin out because you know what it’s going to cost them to move it somewhere else? It’s easy maths, right?

Mark Chalmers: Yeah, there’s no place to move it to.  If somebody thinks “we’ll ship you some material and you can get a 10% margin on that and we can use the mill whenever we want to” – no, we’re not doing that.

Matthew Gordon: If investors buy into the macro story, then surely now is the time to go and talk about acquisitions?

Mark Chalmers: In the Section 232 process, with the remedy that we asked for, we were staying away from M&A activity because we were looking for an industry solution.  Not just a solution for UR Energy and Energy Fuels and we are trying to allow enough critical mass for there to be competition amongst the various fuel parties that remain in the United States.  Well, if we’re not going exactly that route and you’re more focused on critical infrastructure and what-not, that direction may change. 

So, we are not opposed to M&A activities if it makes sense and maybe a little less or so than perhaps when we in the actual Section 232 process.  But, I can’t stress, we were looking for an industry solution and a lot of other producers or producer wannabes were riding on our backs hoping we would get that across the line.  So, we’ll be open.

Matthew Gordon: Okay, but you don’t want competition though do you?

Mark Chalmers: Some level of competition is healthy.  We’re certainly not trying to come up with a monopoly. Some people said we’re monopolised by owning the mill, well we’re monopolised by owning the mill because we own it and we pay for it.  If somebody wants to go out and permit and construct a mill somewhere else in the United States, they’re free to do that.

Matthew Gordon: How much cash have you got left?

Mark Chalmers: I can’t say in complete accuracy, but we should have a $40M working capital.  We’re still in a strong position compared to our peers and that’s by choice.  We’re glad we have that position right now.

Matthew Gordon: When you told me you need to cash position, you want to have a cash position, it makes you feel in control, are you going to need to go and raise any more money any time soon?

Mark Chalmers: Well, look we don’t want to raise money at these prices, but it is important in this business to not get too close to the wire, and I think that a lot of people own us because of the fact that we don’t sail too close to the wind.  Particularly when you have the permanent facilities that we have.  They are expensive and you don’t want to get that close, because you can have an event like we saw with how the stock reacted on Section 232.  So, we’re going to try to maintain our strong position as much as possible.

Matthew Gordon:  Do you think your shares were inflated before the 232 announcement?  Do you think people were thinking this could go your way and you’re back down at the level you should be?

Mark Chalmers: Well, I mean that’s debateable.  Personally, I think that we got over-punished, but obviously people were in the shares because they thought there was going to be a positive outcome, the story was so strong.  So, I think if you look at right now, even after the 12th of July, a lot of the Uraniums have come off globally.  There were people who were in the stock, you know, they thought that we had line of sight to positive cashflow and profits.

Matthew Gordon:  What’s next – do you wait for these 90 days? What are you doing during that time – is it business as usual?

Mark Chalmers:  The focus is on what potentially can get us to cashflow quicker, faster inflection points, so we’re going to focus extensively on these working groups.  We’ll spend a lot of time in DC.  We’ll spend a lot of time working with the administration and these various groups that will be participating in, the working group. 

We’re still working on the Hill – we had very strong support on the Hill with Sarah Bruckto, Liz Cheney.  We had 50 Congressmen sign a letter in our support, they sent to the President.  We had 39 of our Native American employees that work at White Mason Mill, on their own initiative, wrote a letter to the President.  We’ll keep pushing every angle we can push but, at the same time, we’re going to be looking at our cost and our burn, and how to best manage our balance sheet to give ourselves plenty of runway here.

Matthew Gordon: You said earlier on, you don’t regret doing it, you would do this again, but has it been a distraction?

Mark Chalmers: It took a lot of our time but, as you pointed out, we’re trying to come up with an inflection point.  We’re trying to make our luck, we’re not trying to just sit on our seat.  There’s a lot of people there that all they’re focused on is just doing nothing and preserving their capital and that’s not making you luck, that’s just waiting. That’s just hope as a strategy. 

We will always try to make our luck and, Matt, as you know I’ve been involved in this business for over 40 years, I’ve produced Uranium all over the world.  Our assets are the best in the world for the size that we fit into in terms of these junior companies. I voted with my feet, I came back from Australia for this opportunity – I’ve no regrets that I did that either.  But it’s a tough business, it’s a tough business and if you’re not tough you shouldn’t be in it.

Matthew Gordon: Well, that’s a great point to finish on – that mining is not easy and it’s been particularly tough….

Mark Chalmers: The whole resource sector is challenged, there’s no question, and certainly with the Section 232 petition, we certainly got some attention on it from all sorts of angles.  As I said, it’s been a big challenge, but I can tell you I sleep well at night, I’m confident but, again, I will not be reckless.


Company page: http://www.energyfuels.com/

If you see something in this article that you agree with, or even disagree with, please let us know in the comments below.

Any advice contained in this website is general advice only and has been prepared without considering your objectives, financial situations or needs. You should not rely on any advice and / or information contained in this website or via any digital Crux Investor communications. We provide paid for consultancy services for Energy Fuels. Before making any investment decision we recommend that you consider whether it is appropriate for your situation and seek appropriate financial, taxation and legal advice.