Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU) – Front Foot Planted, We Don’t Move Backwards (Transcript)

Energy Fuels' White Mesa Mill

Interview with Mark Chalmers, President & CEO of Uranium producer, Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU).

Energy Fuels made an announcement last week about a $16.6M Bought Deal, which closed on Thursday, some shareholders do not seem pleased. We ask Chalmers why he did it and why on those terms.

What does Chalmers know that we don’t about the DOE announcement? What are his use of proceeds? And what is his strategy? Is there M&A planned, yes or no? And how does he plan to monetise the White Mesa Mill? Insider buying in the market for UUUU has been heavy in the last couple of days.

Interview highlights:

  • 1:31 – News Release: Why Did They Do it?
  • 4:05 – DOE Announcement: Does Energy Fuels Know Something the Rest of Us Don’t?
  • 6:33 – Financial Position at Present and Valuations of Stock
  • 7:31 – Possibilities to Sell Vanadium
  • 9:04 – Use of Proceeds: M&A and Project Focus
  • 13:17 – White Mesa Mill: Are There Talks of Other Companies Using the Mill?
  • 15:02 – $150M for the Creation of Uranium Reserves: Conversations with Miners on Price

Click here to watch the interview.

Matthew Gordon: Hi Mark. How has your week been?

Mark Chalmers: Oh, it’s been busy, with closing the financing. It’s been a very busy week for us.

Matthew Gordon: Ok so I guess I’m going to ask you the same question you’ve been asked a lot since you put out the news release about a week ago, which is Why did you do it, and why those terms?

Mark Chalmers: Well Matt, you know, it was expensive money, but as I’ve said to you and multiple times, as I’ve said to shareholders, we want to be on the front foot rather than the  back foot. We’re very encouraged that the government has announced planning to buy Uranium again, it’s the first time they’ve been planning to buy it since 1983. So we want to be as ready as we can for that because we think we’re best position to capitalise on that. But the other thing that probably a number of people didn’t understand or realise is that we had a convertible debenture that matures at the end of 2020, and it became a current liability at the beginning of this year. So we wanted to be in the position that we can show that we had enough funds to cover that on our own terms and abilities; without having the convertible drive us, we wanted to be in a position to drive the convertible.

Matthew Gordon: Ok but did that convertible contribute towards Cantor Fitzgerald being able to negotiate quite tough terms now? I get the point that if you didn’t, your negotiation stance towards the end of the year was going to be pretty difficult, you know, I’ve been there myself. But were they pushing you hard now because they could?

Mark Chalmers: Well you know, it was our decision, we weren’t being pushed, we discussed it certainly at board level quite extensively, and we just decided that it was going to be better to go now and get the funds and be ready for the future. But you know, no one wants to go and get into financing that… and I want to say that it was a bought deal, it was straight common shares, no warrants, but no one wants to be in a financing that pushes the share price down like it did for us. But again, we believe that we’re in the strongest position of anyone else, and we think there’s other people who are going to go to market probably quite soon and we wanted to be there sooner than they were. And as I said, this announcement by the government to buy Uranium, no one is in a better position to capitalise on that than Energy Fuels.

Matthew Gordon: Lots of questions. And I’m going to throw these at you in no particular order. You keep saying the word ‘front foot’, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about being able to capitalise on the DOE announcement? In which case, what do you know that we don’t?

Mark Chalmers: I think the demand…You know, we haven’t heard the whole story yet out of the working group on terms of the whole three steps of Nuclear fuel cycle, so we’re still hopeful that there’s more to come here. But we want to be in a position that right now the government’s announced that this USD$150M for this strategic reserve, we want to be in a position to get the majority or at least a large share of that ahead of… there is going to be lots of competition for it. But no one has the history, the proven history in the facilities like we do. Ur-Energy are in a pretty good spot too because they are a proven producer, but we are in the best position to deliver into that initiative.

Matthew Gordon: Ok so you’re making a bet, you don’t know anything that the market doesn’t know? Just so I am clear.

Mark Chalmers: Correct. We have released everything we know about where we are in this process and where the government is in this process. But there have been statements through Secretary Brouillette, and others, that there should be additional information forthcoming on the Working Group’s findings in the next few weeks or so. But we’ve also been waiting a couple of years for information flow, and it’s been delay, delay, delay.

Matthew Gordon: Ok, so are you expecting more money to be mentioned in these future announcements? Or more confirmation on the USD$150M?

Mark Chalmers: Well you know, we think that Nuclear Fuel Working Group, and I’m speculating a bit here…agrees that they need to do something to re-establish the Nuclear fuel cycle, the front 3 steps through enrichment. So we believe that they’ve come up with findings, but I don’t know exactly what those findings are Matt. But we, as I’ve said, what we do know is what they have released and we want to be in the best position to capitalise on that than anyone else.

Matthew Gordon: Okay, and I want to talk about use of proceeds in a second but if you don’t mind, what is your position now? Because when we’ve talked in the past you’ve had about USD$40M between cash and inventory, you’ve topped it up with another USD$16.6M..what position are you in with regards to your cash today…I know you’ve got the convert coming through, but what does it look like today?

Mark Chalmers: You know, we’re going to announce our financials in March. But yeah, in the order of magnitudes that you’re talking about…in the USD$40’s, plus this capital raise, you’ve got the convert at the end of the year. We’ve got around USD$20M of that is inventory, about half in value is Uranium that we value at around USD$25lbs, and about half is Vanadium which we’re valuing at around USD$5lbs which incidentally is coming up a little bit…last I saw it was in the USD$7s, so we’re hoping to get another kick there.

Matthew Gordon: So you are not tempted to sell the Vanadium today? Because it has been as low as USD$3 and as high as USD$30…so what do you do?

Mark Chalmers: Well exactly. I’ve said to you that we’re trying to do the Carbide plan which is to have inventories that we can deploy when we want to deploy quickly. And a big part of our plan, our strategy is to have inventories available packaged, ready to go. And that’s another reason for financing, because if you had in the order of USD$40M of cash working capital, the convert becomes a current liability, then you’re down in the mid USD$20s or so, of which USD$20M was inventory. So we believe we’re going to get a bigger bounce out of that inventory at the right time. I understand that the average person who is a shareholder may not fully understand our motives, but we wanted to keep that inventory, because whatever the government purchases, assuming they purchase inventories, you could get a 2X or maybe even more than that in flexing up on the value.

Matthew Gordon: Ok so thanks for sharing your motives with us. I appreciate that and it makes sense. Can I talk about use of proceeds? There are two strands here; one I need to deal with. Are you going to use any of your current cash available to you, you closed yesterday, to do any M&A work? Are you going to buy any of your peers?

Mark Chalmers: You know, it’s always a possibility and I’m never going to say ‘no’ because that’s an absolute. It puts us in a stronger position to do the M&A, so I’m never going to say no but I’m not going to say yes either. How’s that?

Matthew Gordon: That is very politic of you. Let me ask you another way. Today are there any plans to do any acquisitions?

Mark Chalmers: Not at this point in time

Matthew Gordon: Got it. Second strand; you talk in your press release about use of proceeds, obviously focus on the ISR project, I assume because that could go into production soonest? Is that right? What’s the order of play because you talk about all four assets but ISR was number one.

Mark Chalmers: We’ve got quite a diversified set of assets, but there’s some work at Nichols Ranch, we’ve got some work in increasing the flow capacity at Nichols Ranch, we’ve got some drilling that needs to be done at Alta Mesa, you know, we’ve got other work that we’re still doing, design work on the Canyon mine, we’ve got the shafts sunk there but we’ve still got to put in some facilities around the shafts, so. I can tell you this much, we’re not going to spend all that money until we get a little more clarity on the outcome from the purchase program, but there are things with a longer lead time that we will put some money in so we are better ready than we are now, even though we’re as ready as anybody out there.

Matthew Gordon: Yes you said you were best placed within US companies to take advantage of that announcement, but you’re not ready to go today without spending some money to get everything up to speed? So what does that mean, how much money are we talking about?

Mark Chalmers: No look, we’re ready to go today on some of our assets, they are ready to go today. But there are a lot of different variables here that we don’t know in this government purchasing programme. For example, are they going to buy inventory? And I think they absolutely should, because otherwise we’re going from a colder start, not a cold start but a colder start to build up production. And the clarity on who’s going to be able to best capitalise on that, that all will drive how much investment is required at which site or sites. So there is some uncertainty about how that will be distributed, the government did say that they thought his purchasing program would basically go to 2 mines, or maybe a little more, but its not designed to go to 5 or 6 mines. It’s not. Now, there could be few more mines potentially around our White Mesa Mill. But it’s really our focus in my opinion on…and when they talk mine’s I believe they are talking production centres where you can actually make the yellowcake, so like White Mesa would be a mine in their terms and perhaps 1 or 2 other ISR facilities. So there is absolutely no need to build new facilities with this current demand as we know it today, it should be focused on existing proven facilities that have a history of delivery that are already constructed ready to go.

Matthew Gordon: Ok. White Mesa, it’s a huge facility and you were saying its been a long time since it got near, or was processing at full capacity. Long time.

Mark Chalmers: Its actually never produced at full capacity. It has a licensed capacity of about 8Mlbs, and the best it’s done is around 4 to 4.5Mlbs.

Matthew Gordon: You’re never going to be able to fill that. Are you having conversations…there was one other CEO who mentioned at a presentation he was doing, I don’t know whether it was a slip of the tongue or has been misinterpreted, but they talked about using your mill to process on their behalf? Have you had conversations with other Uranium companies on this topic?

Mark Chalmers: Not recently no. No one but us has the right to use White Mesa Mill right now. Does that change in time? Perhaps. But no one has line of sight to use White Mesa Mill. We do have some clean-up of an idled Uranium mine that is currently going into White Mesa through an agreement there. Once that material shows up at the site we’re stockpiling it, we have the right to process that at our own schedule and desires. But we have full ownership of the Uranium from that material. So yeah, no one has line of sight. A lot’s going to depend on how the implementation process goes with this initial purchasing, we’ll see where we go from there.

Matthew Gordon: Ok. On this USD$150M, because again, there’s been a lot of numbers floating around. We don’t know the price at which the government is going to have conversations with miners, do you know?

Mark Chalmers: Well noI don’t, other than the quantum of the USD$150M. But there is a fair amount of banter around, ‘oh its USD$50 or USD$45’. Well USD$45 or USD$50 is not enough, that is not a high enough price. That is not a sustainable price. And when people say they can make comfortable margins with USD$50 in the United States, they’re full of something but I don’t want to say to you…

Matthew Gordon: Smoke?

Mark Chalmers: …Exactly what they are full of. But we need prices that are well north of USD$50. I mean sure, if we get USD$50, we are in a position at least Energy Fuels is, where we have 500,000lbs or more of Uranium that could be monetized, and that’s certainly going to be a help, and we can run projects like Canyon. This doesn’t mean we can’t run some of our projects. But USD$50 isn’t a fair price, it should be north of USD$60 is a sustainable price. It annoys me when people say ‘all we need is USD$40 or USD$50’, and they are full of it. Like I said, we have projects we can mine before that but that is at the site, it does not include the full loadings of a public company to deliver any kind of sustainability. And I think the key thing is that this USD$150M is over 10 years, so we need a sustainable solution and outcome here, not to have a flash in the pan and have people not being able to make it because the prices are too low.

Matthew Gordon: Ok so having had those discussions, and I can hear its been a source of frustration with people speculating around the price, but let’s even say it was USD$75 just for the sake of argument, that’s 2Mlbs we’re talking about, its not a lot, and they still have to go out and…

Mark Chalmers: No, and again there’s a lot of moving parts here Matt that we don’t know exactly what they are right now. And as I said, we don’t know what follows, or if anything follows with the Working Group when they get into more details. But I’m speculating here a bit, I believe that this first announcement is not big enough for somebody like say Cameco to come back in and restart their operations. And if that’s the case, and I don’t know for a fact that it is, that makes more room for ourselves and people like Ur-Energy. I think I’ve told you this, that since 2004, 2 companies have mined 85% and produced 85% of Uranium produced in the United States, and it was Cameco and Energy Fuels. So the 2 of us have the longest history of production over anyone else. Now, there are a couple of projects like the Uranium One and Ur-Energy that didn’t produce back in 2004, they started in mid-way say 2008 or 2009, or 2011 or 2012 that also contributed a material amount of Uranium. But if you include those 4 companies, 97% of the Uranium produced since 2004 were 4 companies. So there aren’t a lot of us with any kind of track record of producing a material amount of new Uranium, and we are very confident that we have that track record. And because at the moment we know the demand is small-ish, there’s no question, it should only go to those who can prove that they can do it, and have those facilities ready to go without major major capital investment.

Matthew Gordon: Ok, you sound confident. If you hear anything from up on the Hill, Whitehouse or DOE please give us a call. I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this thing’s going to progress.

Mark Chalmers: You’ve got my number Matt, you know where I’m at, and I’m always happy to have a chat with you.

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. 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' White Mesa Mill

Energy Fuels US$16.6M Deal – What Does It Mean?

A wide photo of U.S President, Donald Trump, in a suit and red tie, making a speech.

Yesterday (February 13th 2020), Energy Fuels, the leading U.S. producer of uranium and potential producer of vanadium, announced an agreement with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co; the ‘innovative global financial services firm‘ has agreed to purchase, on a bought deal basis, US$16.6 million of common shares of the Company at a price of US$1.47 per share. We’ve studied the business model of Energy Fuels before, but what does this latest development mean for Energy Fuels investors and the uranium space as a whole?

Price Discovery On The Horizon?

A man we’ve sat down a lot with recently is Energy Fuels CEO, Mark Chalmers. He has found himself in the Crux hot seat in January 2020, December 2019 and October 2019, and this is just some of our encounters with the uranium veteran. He’s been very transparent with us throughout this bear market and we hope to talk with him next week to get the inside take on this agreement. So, in the meantime, we only postulate as to why Energy Fuels has done this now; what could this mean for the company?

President Trump’s apparent commitment to replenishing uranium reserves and adjusting the American military’s uranium purchasing habits towards full coverage in 2021 has got commentators excited. It proposes a budget of US$150M per annum for the creation of a US uranium reserve, as the administration seeks to help struggling producers of the fuel for nuclear power reactors. What this means precisely in terms of who and where the uranium will be purchase is still unclear. Given the security argument has been used as the main thrust of most discussions, the US uranium producers hope that the entire budget is US only and would not include Canada, Australia, European and African uranium producers and other US-friendly jurisdictions. The one certainty is that it is eventually unlikely to include Kazakhstan and Russia.

In a recent interview with us, Bannerman Resources CEO, Brandon Munro, explained that a behavioral switch by the U.S government could be a catalyst for a uranium market sentiment switch and, therefore, price discovery. So, is Energy Fuels getting into position early and readying itself for action in the near future? The press release seems to suggest so, but we will need to dig deeper than that. Why a bought deal? Who is at the table? Why not use their current cash drawdown facility?

Is this US$150M budget for the creation of a uranium reserve the beginning of uranium price discovery? Do they see a 2-tier system being created? What have they heard that has made them pull the trigger now?

Our Maths:

Munro stated in our interview that the U₃O₈ sector has operated a 20Mlbs deficit in the last few years. His logic went something like this:

  1. The United States military fleet consumes c. 50Mlbs of uranium per annum.
  2. It has been underbuying for the last few years by around 20%, or 10Mlbs.
  3. If it chooses to change its policy from underbuying to full coverage, 10Mlbs of extra demand for U3O8 will result in the current U3O8 deficit being halved.

In all our previous interviews, the absolute minimum spot price uranium CEOs have stated they could produce at (with a very small margin, if any) would be US$50/lb.

Based on this figure, US$150M of investment equates to 3Mlbs total of U₃O₈; not exactly a lot, but it’s a start.

While this clearly won’t be as significant a deficit reduction as Munro speculated, could this decision create momentum and a sentiment shift as we edge towards the next uranium bull market? Could it combine with other industry movers to create great change? We look forward to asking Chalmers. If you have any questions or thoughts, leave them below in the comments, DM us on Twitter (@CruxInvestor) or leave us a message on one of our uranium video interviews on YouTube.

The Early Bird Catches The Worm?

The announcement has certainly caught the market by surprise. It would appear that Energy Fuels may be positioning itself to get producing as quickly as possible. Will it have caught some of its peers out, and will it be able to close the deal? It could be a really valuable weathervane as to what the generalist market is thinking.

In the press release, Energy Fuels states the US$16.6M deal will be used to fund various activities required to increase uranium and/or vanadium production in response to the President of the United States’ budget for the fiscal year of 2021. How does the use of proceeds differ from what was originally planned?

Energy Fuels appears to think this announcement is a big moment. What will Chalmers have to say?

What do you make of all this? Comment below! We want to hear your take.

Company Page:

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. 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.

A wide photo of U.S President, Donald Trump, in a suit and red tie, making a speech.

Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU) – Do you Hear What I Hear Ringing Through the Sky? (Transcript)

Interview with Mark Chalmers, President and CEO of Uranium producer, Energy Fuels (NYSE: UUUU).

It’s a bloodbath for Uranium equities at the moment. There is no news from Washington and most Uranium CEO’s have gone quiet. So we called Mark to see what he knows.

Interview highlights:

  • Continuous Silence: What is Happening in the Uranium Market?
  • Delays for the Decision and Options Available
  • US & Iran: How the Situation Affects the Uranium Market
  • The Mill: How Old is it, What is the Cost of Maintaining it and Could it be Decommissioned in the Future?

Watch the interview here.

Matthew Gordon: We are operating in a bit of a void here. I’m looking at share prices of most of the Uranium players, North American, are being hammered. What do you know that we don’t?

Mark Chalmers: Well, I think that we have is, we have investors that are just tired of waiting. They have been waiting; when we started this 232 process 2 years ago and it just drags on and on and on. Look, I share the frustrations of investors, but just remember; for every share sold, there is  one purchased, even though the price of these shares has gone down and we have all been hammered. Not just in the United States but even in some of the global equities in Canada have been hammered as well too. It certainly doesn’t make me feel good when I see these shares slipping but as you know, our company and Ur-Energy started this process 2 years ago, but we are still making progress. We are still making great progress. I think that the Government gets it. I think they get it that we have to have a nuclear fuel cycle in the United States.

Matthew Gordon: Why do you say that they are making great progress or that the Government understands?

Mark Chalmers: I think that when the tack changed from the 232 process, which is more of a  trade-focussed initiative, to national security when it comes to producing Uranium and nuclear products, you know, focussed on the military’s requirements, the Government’s requirements,  we got rid of, effectively, all opposition that we know of when we made that shift. The utilities are not openly fighting us. We’ve got good support from NEI.  We’ve had many, many meetings, I wouldn’t want to count them up. Hundreds and hundreds of meetings with people in the Administration, people in Congress.

Matthew Gordon: You are meeting these important people up on The Hill, what are they saying?

Mark Chalmers: You know, I think that we have gone through a huge education process on how dependant we are for import products in the United States and I think that when we talk to them, they are shocked at how dependant we have become. The government inventories have been there for decades, but they are finite and they are diminishing. As long as we are the largest consumer in the world, is that where you want to be, and not have the capabilities to replace those inventories because Uranium nuclear fuel products for the military, has to be unobligated products by the treaty, so it basically has to be by treaty, mined, converted and enriched in the United States of America.

Matthew Gordon: Pompeo and Trump; do they understand the scale of the problem?

Mark Chalmers: Look, I haven’t met with Pompeo, I haven’t met with Trump but I believe they both understand the magnitude of the problem. I think the people surrounding them understand the problem. I think they are understanding they need to make a decision quickly because of this imbalance of our ability to produce these very specialised products for the US Government.

Matthew Gordon: 12 months ago they had this same problem, today it is more imperative. Given the nature of some of the politics in America at the moment; we have this impeachment hearing going on, we have got Iran waivers being discussed, another 60 day extension, is it possible to make a decision in that environment?

Mark Chalmers: Look, we think so. It’s certainly been harder to get to the top of the pile. Since the original working group deliberations and the report they prepared, it’s been really hard. Every time we thought we were getting closer, it kept getting delayed. Certainly, with our discussions with people in Congress and those in Administration, we say, ‘Look, we are out of time. We need to tell our shareholders what the outcome is with this review. They need to understand, we are getting hammered with our share price and we also need to send a clear message to the world of Uranium mining and these nuclear fuel products; including the Russians, the Chinese, the Kazakhs, that the United States of America is not going out of business, in this area, at the front end.

Matthew Gordon: What are the options on the table now? We’ve been reading about Government-buying programs of US Uranium.

Mark Chalmers: Look, we try not to make it guesswork because it’s better for us to provide some guidance here. I mean, the first thing we want is, we want the Government to come out and say that the Government is supporting the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States: mining, conversion and enrichment, at a level that at least provides some critical mass so that we have the capabilities to produce our basic requirements, not all our products, but we can flex up if required. So the number one is; we want to be able to show our shareholders and tell the world, or have the Government tell the world the conclusions that they have made through  both the working group and the Section 232 investigations.  That’s number 1.  Number 2 – we want to see, or we hope to see immediate demand for Uranium mining. Uranium mining is the most challenged first step of the process. We would like to see the Government starting to buy Uranium: like now, this year -2020, and onwards to make sure that the Uranium miners can sell their product at fair prices. Fair prices. So that we can get some cashflow re-established. 

These companies that are not producing now – zero cashflow, it’s not a real good outcome; it’s not sustainable for a long period of time. And then lastly, the plan, the plan that they announce, we do realise that some of this, or a big chunk of this is going to have to go through appropriations. The expensive part of the plan is really the enrichment. Uranium mining and conversion already have a lot of the infrastructure in place on the lesser side of this re-establishment of the fuel cycle.  when you start talking about building new enrichment plants, being able to make everything from 495, 235, all the way up into 90s 235, that’s going to start costing billions. Now, the Government was already planning to re-establish enrichment without, in the early days, without looking at the Uranium and the conversion steps.

Matthew Gordon: Interesting. 20% of US energy is produced by nuclear fusion. There have been a few plants that have come to end of life, and a few due to come to end of life. The utilities have got oil, they have got gas, they have got renewables; nuclear is part of that, but for them to invest billions of dollars into building, or upgrading new plants, must be a big part of the conversations that they are having with the Government too. So, the miners are just a small part of this, but it’s got to be joined up thinking.

Mark Chalmers: Yes. And I think that there was a lot of logic when the President came up with his working group. Now granted, the working group’s main focus was just these first three steps of the fuel cycle but certainly, the Government, or the Trump administration is certainly committed to keeping its mini nuclear power plants operating, going forward, for obvious reasons. I think that the Government, like the DOD and the DOE, are also getting increasingly optimistic about the micro reactors and the small modular reactors. You know, this new Haleu fuel which is 20% 235, is also becoming a product that the Government thinks they will need for the SMRs particularly. And then, lastly, space travel – you know, that’s coming back on to the horizon. Now that is not probably a large consumer, and takes some time out, but again,  I’ve said this to you many times, it is not time for the United States to not be in this business.

Matthew Gordon: What is your view on this Iranian waiver issue at the moment. It’s a real political hotbed. The Europeans don’t want it. I know there’s a lot of discussions internally between Pompeo and Mnuchin about it. They are in disagreement about it. Is that a big distraction for you?

Mark Chalmers: I think it helps us because I think it shows how sensitive and inter-related this fuel market is outside of the United States. Even this morning I was hearing that Trump and Pompeo were wanting these waivers to go away. I also heard, and I heard this on the radio, Fox News, that the utilities, they don’t want it to go away because they have such a dependency already on the former Soviet Union, Russians, for fuelling their reactors. So it is all interconnected. People talk about, we’ve got all of these stockpiles, we’ve got all of this Uranium. We don’t need it for another 5 years, 10 years so obviously, the business couldn’t ever be healthy, and I know that’s not the case. But then, if you start looking at when you remove or let these waivers expire, and it starts to create issues where Russia cannot import into the United States, or cut back on that, a lot of these utilities are going to start running out of fuel, like within a year and that is sure going to shock people. What happened to all of those inventories? Where are all those products? You know, we thought we had 5 to 10 years of those products available: we don’t.

Matthew Gordon: How much inventory is available to US ultilities today? What are they sitting on? A year? Two years? Three years?

Mark Chalmers: Look, the utilities: I understand they want the lowest cost fuel to keep nuclear as competitive as they can. We know that fuel is such a small part of nuclear generation, but nuclear generation is struggling. But, you know, Uranium is in all these different shapes and forms and you’ve got to make sure you keep those in to balance with what your requirements are.  I think that this just highlights the fact that the United States doesn’t have the ability now, you know, URAMCO is fore-owned, in New Mexico, and they can do enrichment there up to 495. But we do not have US-owned capacity for enrichment. We do have US-owned capacity for conversion but that is shut down right now. I think it just highlights the fact that you do not want to be overly-dependant on all of these other countries and you do not want to be in a position where you have to fight with  one or both of your arms tied behind your back the Iranians and with the relationships they have with the Russians.

Matthew Gordon: Can we just talk about your mill, White Mesa. You know, ‘he who controls the mill, controls the district. So people are saying, hang on, the mill that he has got has a huge capacity which you can’t possibly fill. How do you maintain this mill? What’s the cost of keeping this thing going? At what point do you decommission something like that? Or is it a case of, you just replace the bits; its ongoing maintenance as you start processing stuff through the plant, you just constantly upgrade.

Mark Chalmers: I think the mill was originally built to operate for like 20 years and now it has been around for over 40 years. There have been a couple of campaigns of modernisation, you know, with control systems and automation. We have replaced a lot of the tankage, we’ve built new tailing cells. There’s been an evolution in technology over the years. So the mill, even though it’s an older facility, is in very good, excellent condition considering its age. So it is unique; as we know, it’s the only one that is operable, licensed, fully-staffed right now. It has the Vanadium circuit, hey, Vanadium is starting to get a bit of life in it. The price of Vanadium is starting to go up. Granted, when it was USD$30, dropped to 5, up to 6, we never thought that would look good but we are hoping that the price of Vanadium continues to go up here this next year or two and we can capitalise on a fairly substantial inventory of Vanadium that we have at the mill. But no, it’s in good shape, as I said, it’s basically, largely staffed. We did lay off a number of people in the last week or the week or so ago. We shut down the Vanadium recovery process because of prices. But it’s in good shape and we are ready to go.

Matthew Gordon: You’ve let some people go, where they permanent staff or temporary staff?

Mark Chalmers: Yes, most of the people that I let go were temporary staff. When we have to spool up the mill, we try to keep a core group of full-time employees and then we spool up with temporary people where possible. It’s our ultimate objective though to offer as many fulltime jobs as we can in the region.

Matthew Gordon:  We’re days away from a decision, but we have heard that before a few times before.

Mark Chalmers: I can assure you, I will let you know and the rest of the world and we have put a lot of our skin and sweat and money, we have worn out, I don’t know how many pairs of shoes I’ve worn out walking the halls of Congress and DC. But we’re excited it is finally going to happen and I know there are the nay-sayers who say it is never going to happen, they don’t think it’s going to happen, but I think we have done a fantastic job when you look at our company, because we have been doing most of the lifting, Energy Fuels has been doing most of the lifting, probably 75% of lifting here. I think it’s remarkable that we have got this thing elevated to where this is at this point in time.

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: 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.


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.

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

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

Energy Fuels' White Mesa Mill

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:

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' White Mesa Mill