Fission Uranium CEO Dev Randhawa says he’s determined to fight through both negative market sentiment and the opposition of some retail shareholders who want him to step down after the failed merger with Denison Mines.
Randhawa said in a phone interview late this morning that it’s business as usual as he advances and markets Fission’s high-grade Triple R deposit on the western side of the Athabasca Basin. A positive PEA will help on that front.
“This’ll probably be the cheapest uranium mine in the world one day, that’s the story,” he said.
Fission is waiting for assays from about 20 drill holes from its summer 2015 program, including from new high-grade zones that aren’t included in the current resource estimate, Randhawa said.
He said Fission has about $11 million in the treasury, down from $25 million as of June 30. The company “doesn’t have to” raise money until March or April, but Randhawa said he is working on some financing angles.
Randhawa acknowledged discontent – “I get the emails,” including from his 92-year-old father – about the declining share price, which has dropped about 46% in the past 6 months including 36% since the merger with Lukas Lundin’s Denison Mines was first announced. The merger failed to get the required two-thirds approval from Fission shareholders – Randhawa said “FOR” votes were in the mid-50% range.
Is the embattled CEO worried about keeping his job? Randhawa said institutional shareholders are supportive of his leadership and repeated that expectations of retail shareholders for a takeover premium were simply too high given market sentiment – and given “past sins” of the majors that overpaid for Athabasca Basin uranium plays, including Rio’s takeover of Hathor.
“The retail people have different expectations, they like takeouts, they don’t like diversified companies sometimes. They like a simple story,” he said. “I know retail people want a takeout, but they’re dreaming because there are no buyers. Trust me, I’ve gone to Paris and met with AREVA, I’ve met with every senior, large company out there, even companies like Teck, who could do an open pit. … unfortunately the market sentiment is against you.
“The big boys understand that there’s nothing you can do about market sentiment.”
Randhawa criticized the “shadow group” of dissenting Fission shareholders – “FCU Oversight” – and said they don’t represent a large group of shareholders. After the group emerged publicly on Oct. 6, more shareholders voted for the merger with Denison than against it – contrary to the group’s claims, he said.
One criticism of dissenting shareholders was doing a deal when a preliminary economic assessment was imminent. The Denison deal was announced on July 6 and Fission came out with a PEA on Sept. 3. The PEA showed a post-tax net present value of $1.02 billion (10% discount rate) and operating costs of $14.02 a pound over a 14-year mine life. The study was done at US$65/lb uranium (significantly higher than the current spot price of US$36.50).
“The PEA was so good, it blew our minds,” he said. Randhawa insisted that Fission “had no idea” that the third-party PEA would be that good: “People think I’m God.”
There was a similar dynamic when Fission’s maiden resource estimate of 105.5M lbs (79.6M indicated, 25.9M inferred) was released, he pointed out – most investors and analysts were expecting a much lower number.
He said it was unfortunate that some shareholders didn’t recognize the value of Denison’s assets – “we would have been the go-to name after Cameco” – but said the focus now is on building pounds at Patterson Lake South and telling the story. “Nothing has changed.”
“All you can do is drill, and promote the story, drill and promote the story,” he said.
Randhawa acknowledged that money has been flowing from Fission to “honeymoon stock” NexGen, as the latter’s share price continues to register gains (25% in the past 6 months). Fission’s neighbour in the western Basin, NexGen has a market capitalization of about $185 million, compared to about $240 million for Fission.
“I’m pretty happy for (NexGen CEO) Leigh (Curyer),” Randhawa said. “But when they get a 43-101 (resource estimate), let me know.”
He said Fission’s Triple R deposit is more favourable because it’s shallower and open-pittable. Most of Fission’s resource is located within 300 metres from surface, while the high-grade in NexGen’s deposit starts 400 metres down, Randhawa said.
NexGen also uses a cut-off grade of .01% for mineralization, Randhawa said, compared to .1% for Fission’s resource estimate. “.01% is not uranium.”
“It’s like I can tell you I’m going to go to a party and every woman’s a 10, but I forgot to tell you it’s from 0 to 100.”
Also Tuesday, Fission announced an advance notice bylaw regarding the nomination of directors. Fission’s AGM is scheduled for Dec. 15.
On Wednesday another feature article about the Athabasca Basin goes live at CEO.CA.
Join the conversation at CEO Chat, where the shareholder town hall meeting featuring Fission CEO Dev Randhawa and Denison chairman Lukas Lundin was covered live.
This is not investment advice and all facts in this article should be verified by the reader. Author owns shares of NexGen Energy. Statements contained on this website that are not historical facts are forward-looking information that involves known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements in this presentation include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the merits of the Company’s mineral properties, mineral resource estimates, and the Company’s plans, exploration programs and studies for its mineral properties, including the timing of such plans, programs and studies. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “has proven”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “potential”, “appears”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “at least”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “should”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such risks and other factors include, among others, risks related to uncertainties inherent in the estimation of mineral resources; commodity prices; changes in general economic conditions; market sentiment; currency exchange rates; the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern; the Company’s ability to raise funds through equity financings; risks inherent in mineral exploration; risks related to operations in foreign countries; future prices of metals; failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; delays in obtaining governmental approvals; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; title disputes or claims; limitations on insurance coverage and the timing and possible outcome of litigation. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could affect the Company and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, do not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. All statements are made as of the date of this presentation and the Company is under no obligation to update or alter any forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that the Company believes to be reasonable, including expectations regarding mineral exploration and development costs; expected trends in mineral prices and currency exchange rates; the accuracy of the Company’s current mineral resource estimates; that the Company’s activities will be in accordance with the Company’s public statements and stated goals; that there will be no material adverse change affecting the Company or its properties; that all required approvals will be obtained and that there will be no significant disruptions affecting the Company or its properties.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that the mineral resources will be categorized as mineral reserves.