Beiträge von newtechxl

  • Afrikander Lease

    Neal Froneman: CEO, Afrikander Lease
    By: Alec Hogg
    Posted: '06-SEP-04 06:57' GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004



    MINEWEB: Neal Froneman joins us now. You’ve come out with quarterly results today. They are also your half-year results. It looks a bit better Neal, but there’s still a long way to go. You listed on Nasdaq on the American stock market. Have you had any reaction back from the American shareholders at this point?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Alec, no, we haven’t had any specific feedback or reaction from the American shareholders. But, yes, I think there’s a long way to go as you said. I think what’s important, though, in our results, is the trend, not the absolute numbers. In fact, I would go as far as to say the second quarter of operating profits is somewhat meaningless because we’ve really been cleaning up gold. So we are the first to acknowledge that the absolute numbers are nowhere near what we want them to be. I think the net loss improvements are substantial. There’s a 70% improvement on the net loss year-on-year. Comparing the same period, it is very significant. And that was our strategy, to stop the bleeding. We were bleeding to death.


    MINEWEB: You’ve got a couple of gold prospects that you’re looking at, that you're developing, that will take time to come on board. But I guess the most important thing for Afrikander Lease is, are you going to survive? And you are busy doing a deal with Randgold JCI. Is that now on track, is that going to be sufficient funding for you?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Yes, Alec, contrary to the last discussion we had …


    MINEWEB: You’ve had some tough discussions in this studio. I think tonight's a little easier, isn’t it?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Well, I thought it’s better that I come and sit in front of you – you don’t seem to attack me then. But jokes aside, Alec, the transaction is well on track. We released an announcement in the middle of the week saying that all the conditions precedent have been met. As I said last time, not everything was within our control. I also said with this transaction it was within our control. And I think we’ve proved that. The only outstanding issue is the general meeting which takes place on the 23rd, and the shareholders circulars have been posted.


    MINEWEB: How much money are you going to be putting in the bank as a result of that?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Again, Alec, our last discussion, there was a bit of confusion. There is about R175m in total that will be raised at these sort of prices, of which R50m is a loan that gets converted, and there’s two ways of converting it.


    MINEWEB: The big issue, though, as far as Aflease is concerned going into the future, for most international investors, is the uranium story. Let’s dwell a little on that, because if you take a guy sitting in the United States, he’s got many different gold shares around the world that he can invest in. But he’s getting excited about Afrikander Lease because of uranium. How significant are the deposits in your business?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: They are very, very significant, and I think the way you’ve just put the question to me is the way that we’ve looked at it from a board perspective. There’s hundreds of junior gold miners. I think we’ve got decent assets. But I don’t think we had the sort of assets from a gold mining perspective that would make us significantly different to anyone of those hundred-odd junior gold miners. But where we can be very significantly different is on the uranium side. We’ve said – and the more we read and the more we understand, the more work we do – we definitely have about half of South Africa’s near-available uranium. And South Africa accounts for 10% of the near-available uranium.


    MINEWEB: What’s that?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: It’s a definition that the uranium producers use, and it’s not a Samrac-compliant definition. It’s uranium that could be mined fairly easily. It’s not ultra-deep, it’s not pie-in-the-sky type uranium. It’s economically viable. And South Africa accounts for 10% of what they call the world’s near-available uranium. And therefore, as a company, we sit on about 5% of the world’s near-available uranium.


    MINEWEB: How long will it take, though, to bring that to account?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Again, as we work on it, we develop new ideas. Some of the better concepts that we’ve founded at Aflease, like the ability to open pit narrow reefs ..


    MINEWEB: Open pit narrow reefs? In layman’s terms, what’s that?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: That simply means that you can open-cast mine, from surface, narrow reefs. Most open-cast mines mine very large, wide and thick ore bodies. When it comes to narrow reefs, it’s a lot more difficult. And in the inner basin, we were mining 12 reefs. The uranium have three different reefs, an upper, middle and lower. And that expertise that’s been developed over a number of years will be the new thinking that’s applied to that deposit.


    MINEWEB: It’s cheaper to mine that way than going underground?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: It is cheaper. We do have to go underground. We’ve developed a concept which is called a “soft start”. So we can, with a minimum amount of capital, get our uranium project off the ground. I think the last time we spoke we were saying we needed initial capital of about R300m to get the big project off the ground. The total capital requirement for that is R1bn. For a company of our size, and the perceived risk, that would be extremely difficult to raise that sort of money. The soft-start approach – we use existing infrastructure. And remember, this is not a greenfields project, this is a brownfields project. It was mined in the past by companies like AngloGold and so on. And for the soft-start approach we require an initial capital of about R75m.


    MINEWEB: It’s a long way from the R300m we were talking about before. What would drop it so?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: As I’ve said, what we have come to realise is that there is a lot of existing infrastructure that can be used to start that operation.


    MINEWEB: Didn’t you know about that before?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: We did, but we took a mega-mine approach, in terms of a broad perspective. What has also happened, we’ve taken the open-cast concept across to the uranium. It’s in the same area. And together that has led to what we call the soft start.


    MINEWEB: Neal, how long, with all of this, how long will it take before you earn you first cash out of real uranium?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: It’s at least two years, Alec.


    MINEWEB: And the uranium market? Is it likely to remain in an upward trend for at least two years?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: It certainly is. And I think that’s one of the key fundamentals of what excites us about this. You know, uranium and its consumption in terms of nuclear power end-users is a 50-year type market. People have a 50-year view on a nuclear power station. We are in the very early phases of a bull run. There is no other known sustainable clean environmentally friendly source of energy right now. The biggest acknowledged threat to the world at the moment is the greenhouse effect, and nuclear energy doesn’t have that sort of problem associated with it.


    MINEWEB: Does the Chinese government have a problem with nuclear energy, because I guess that would be key to unlocking it.


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Certainly they are seen as one of the more aggressive areas of growth of nuclear energy. But I have to say, right now, as we sit here, there’s 30 new nuclear power plants under construction worldwide, and it’s not just in the Eastern bloc countries or any specific area of the world.


    MINEWEB: And they all use uranium as their primary feedstock?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Yes, they do, and the only real difference is the amount of enrichment that they require, of the uranium, to make it work.


    MINEWEB: And the uranium sources of supply at the moment? Is there still an oversupply?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: No. And again, that underpins the fundamental changes that have occurred in the market. Only 46% of total consumption comes from new supply at the moment. In other words, right now as we sit here, 54% is coming from other sources that are not new supply.


    MINEWEB: Meaning what? Recycled?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Some of it is recycled. But that’s a very small component. The majority comes from the stockpiles that were built up in the sort of Cold War era, and the other major source of uranium at the moment that makes up the shortfall is the conversion of weapons-grade uranium to commercial-grade uranium. And that’s an agreement that the United States has with the old Soviet Union.


    MINEWEB: So Neal, once a power plant starts, and there are 30 of them that are in the stage of construction at the moment, and they use the uranium, then the uranium is used – then you need new uranium to replenish it?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: In most cases that holds true. What the end users have done, they’ve also become more efficient. And they use more of the uranium that they’ve got. So some of the shortfall is also being met from recycling some of that uranium. But essentially, once you’ve consumed the atomically active U235, it’s consumed.


    MINEWEB: And what is the likely cost to you to bring the uranium to account, from your side, in two years’ time, and what is the market price at the moment?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Our break-even cost on the soft-start approach is $14 a pound. That takes into account the additional revenue we get from gold, because we are very fortunate. In our case, gold will be a by-product. The current spot price of uranium is just over $19 a pound, $19.25 a pound. But you can enter into long-term contracts right now at $23 a pound. So it looks very good and it’s a rising market.


    MINEWEB: When might you pull the trigger on your investment there?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Well, certainly the board has approved R15m, and part of the money that we raise now is earmarked for that. And that is to complete a pre-feasibility. I have to say that the numbers that we talk about here are preliminary numbers. We need to do the appropriate technical studies. So it has a health warning. But right now, we are very comfortable with what we are saying.


    MINEWEB: And you are likely to be a uranium company in future, rather than a gold company?


    NEAL FRONEMAN: Alec, you know, if I say that then everyone thinks we are going to discard our gold assets. And that’s not true. We’ve got good gold assets. They can make us good money once we bring them into production. But, as I said right in the beginning, it would be illogical for us to remain a junior gold miner when we have a resource like this.


    MINEWEB: That was Neal Froneman, chief executive officer of Afrikander Lease

  • Afrikander Lease

    Uranium Part II
    October 1, 2004


    In response to last week's column on uranium I received several emails asking which uranium stocks people should invest in. I appreciate the emails but frankly, it's quite silly to think that I can give you specific investment advice for your portfolio based on an email that says: "Which uranium stocks should I buy?"


    Answering that question would be irresponsible of me as I don't know anything about the requestor's financial position, age, employment, risk tolerance, etc. And even if I did answer the question with a simple "XYZ Corp.", it would hardly be of any benefit without an explanation of why I like the company.


    I will say that there are very few high-quality uranium companies out there today. Most of the so-called uranium companies are nothing more than unsuccessful gold, or silver, or copper, or nickel, or platinum, or palladium ambulance chasers that have found a new ambulance to chase, and are therefore on their way to a crash-site.


    That is not to say that one cannot make a lot of money tagging along for the ride, but you have to know when to let go and jump off; and such advice is not within the scope of this column. As I have said many times in the past, you can read what I think for free in this column; however, if you want to know what I do with my own money, you will have to subscribe to my newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.paulvaneeden.com.


    What I will tell you is that the six-hundred-pound-gorilla in the uranium business is Cameco Corporation* (CCO on the Toronto Stock Exchange and CCJ on the New York Stock Exchange).


    Cameco's shares have risen more than sixty-seven percent since May this year and the stock can hardly be called a bargain. It was a bargain four years ago when I recommended it (a copy of the article is on my website at http://www.paulvaneeden.com in the Library Section) because it was trading for thirteen times earnings, four times cash flow, fifty-five percent of book value and paying a three percent dividend. Since then the stock has increased by almost six hundred percent, so it's fair to say that the easy money has been made.


    Nonetheless, I do think the uranium price will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, barring any nuclear "accidents". And that implies that the share price of Cameco should continue to do well. So if you want some exposure to the uranium market without doing any more due diligence than the free advice you can get on the Internet, which, by the way, is usually worth just about what you pay for it, then Cameco might be all you need to know.


    In addition to being the world's second largest uranium mining company it is also one of the few companies involved with the downstream processing of uranium, which means that it will not only benefit from a higher uranium price but also from the potential increase in the beneficiation of uranium before it can be used by utilities to generate electricity.


    There is a growing global realization that it will be impossible to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Agreement without resorting to a major shift towards nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is not only a clean source of energy, it is an abundant source of energy. And it might be a more prevalent source of energy than what many people realize.


    There are four hundred and forty nuclear power plants currently operating in thirty-one counties. Sixteen percent of global electricity production comes from nuclear power plants and thirty nuclear reactors are currently under construction in eleven countries.


    In addition to these commercial reactors, there are two hundred and eighty research nuclear reactors in fifty-six countries with more under construction. And over one hundred and fifty ships are being propelled by more than two hundred nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear fuel is more prevalent than what most people realize. And it just shows you that nuclear power generation is not only clean, it is also a lot safer than what certain special interest groups would like the world to believe.


    The massive increase in the uranium price that we saw during the Seventies was caused by fear that the market would not be able to supply utilities with sufficient fuel to power their commercial reactors. In response, the utility companies started stockpiling uranium and this only added to the current demand, which drove the spot price of uranium through the roof.


    Current annual demand for uranium is approximately one hundred and seventy million pounds while mine production is only about seventy five million pounds. If utilities panic again, and it is quite likely that they will since the cost of uranium fuel is a very small part of the cost of running a nuclear power plant, then we could easily see the current demand for uranium increase dramatically.


    Given the tight supplies, a further increase in demand from the utilities would blow the lid off the uranium price and we'll see a replay of the Seventies, when the uranium price exceeded forty dollars a pound.


    But it would be dangerous to assume that the uranium price will continue to rise without interspersed gut-wrenching corrections. Keep that in mind, because the uranium price has increased almost three-fold in less than four years without a correction -- one is overdue.


    As with any market, and all speculations, we have to try to keep our wits about us. It's not always easy: greed and fear are both powerful motivators. But it is fun.


    Paul van Eeden

  • Afrikander Lease

    Uranium
    September 24, 2004


    While we wait until after the elections for the gold price to rally, two other metals warrant a look.


    I wrote about silver last month, noting that the silver price is much more volatile than the gold price and so astute speculators should be able to make a mint trading it.


    A rally in the gold price usually brings buyers into the silver market as well, and because the silver market (in dollar terms) is so small, even a modest amount of speculative buying can significantly drive up the silver price.


    It happened recently when the silver price rose from $4.50 to $7.50 an ounce, only to collapse again to $5.50 earlier this year. But that's the nature of the silver market. If you're comfortable with volatility, and you remember to sell when the price runs up, the silver market should treat you well.


    The other metal you should be paying attention to is uranium.


    Annual uranium demand for power generation is about 170 million pounds. The big expense in a nuclear power plant is the capital cost to actually build the plant. Because the price of uranium accounts for a small portion of the cost of generating electricity, the utilities can not afford to run out of fuel: they have to keep operating. So they are likely to start hoarding uranium at the first sign of a potential supply shortage -- it won't be the first time.


    The uranium price peaked in 1979 at more than $43 a pound on fears of production shortages and increasing commodity prices. Since then nuclear power generating facilities have been hoarding uranium to protect themselves from price volatility and supply disruptions. However, the supply disruptions never materialized and the price of the metal declined to less than $8 a pound by 1992.


    By 1996 the uranium price had recovered to $16.50 a pound. Then the combination of excess inventory held by utilities (that reduced the demand for uranium), additional supply coming from the dismantling of Russian warheads and the strength in the dollar caused the uranium price to decline from $16.50 to only $7.10 a pound in 2000.


    Uranium is currently trading for $19.65 a pound -- a significant increase from where it was only four years ago, but it could still go higher.


    Primary uranium supply from mining is only 75 million pounds a year, compared to the 170 million pounds of annual demand. The balance comes from secondary supply such as the drawdown of excess inventory still left over from the Seventies, dismantling of Russian nuclear warheads, re-enrichment of spent reactor fuels and, more recently, the enrichment of uranium tailings.


    Most of the secondary supply, with the exception of weapons-grade uranium being procured from Russia, is not expected to last for much longer than a few more years.


    Cameco, the world's largest uranium producer, has been talking about a production shortfall for years. And for years the imbalance between primary supply and annual demand seemed benign. The most recent rise in the uranium price, however, might be an indication that the days of cheap uranium are over. That opens the possibility of another Seventies-style uranium price-shock, when the price increased almost seven-fold in less than ten years.


    Paul van Eeden works primarily to find investments for his own portfolio and shares his investment ideas with subscribers to his weekly investment publication. For more information please visit his website (http://www.paulvaneeden.com) or contact his publisher at (800) 528-0559 or (602) 252-4477.

  • Nevada Pacific Gold Ltd. WKN 929 971 ISIN CA6413981029 NPG

    Hommels Kommentar zu den Bohrergebnissen.


    I have been eagerly awaiting these drill results of phase one of a 10,000 foot drill program. They did not show a 4-6 oz./ton range as hoped, as many of the results were 1 oz./ton, but they did find one spot of higher grade: 8 oz./Ton over 40 feet. I'm leaving the rest of my prior comments in full this week, so you can compare the expectations with the reality.
    -------------------

  • Cream Minerals Ltd. / CMA (TSXV)

    * CMA.V CRMXF.OB (Cream Minerals Ltd) (I own shares.)
    http://www.creamminerals.com/cream/main.htm
    http://www.langmining.com/cream-mx/
    34.8 mil shares fully diluted (March 31, 2004)
    @ $.30/share Cdn x .77 US/Cdn = $.23 US
    $8 mil MC
    from: http://www.langmining.com/crea…panyProjects_Summary.html
    Project B: Potential Target: 400m x 500m x 150m x 2.5 t/m3 = 75,000,000 tonnes
    Say at: Au 0.480 g/t Ag 149.33 g/t
    Silver only, that's (1 gram = .03215 troy oz.) 4.8 oz./t x 75 million tonnes = 360 million oz. "exploration potential" in a low-grade deposit.
    $8 mil MC / 360 mil oz. = $.02/oz. (exploration potential) --not yet even a "resource"!


    Additional comments: Another silver property is the Kaslo.
    "The Kaslo Silver Property encompasses the Keen Creek Silver Belt and is comprised of nine former high grade silver mines"...


    (I own shares of CMA.V)

  • Plexmar Resources Inc. WKN 867 458 ISIN CA7289021072 PLE

    Kennt jemand Plexmar ??



    * PLE.V (PLEXMAR RESOURCES INC) (I own shares)
    http://www.plexmar.com/ (now updated)
    info@plexmar.com Guy Bedard, President, Phone: (418) 658-6776 Fax: (418) 658-8605
    --Signed two option agreements to acquire two exploration projects in Northern Peru, Cascajal and Marilia.
    67 mil shares fully diluted (August 2004) --Guy gave me this number (Sept, 2004)
    @ $.135/share Cdn x .77 US/Cdn = $.10 US
    $7 mil MC
    $1.4 mil Cdn. money in the bank.
    --just acquired (OPTIONS ON) 2 silver mines in Peru. Total: 1.09 mil gold oz., 28.4 mil oz. silver
    Total silver equiv: 38.4 mil oz. --I can't find these numbers on the new website?! And I didn't realize the property acquisitions were options, and not 100% owned acquisitions?!
    Cascajal--Plexmar must pay to the owner $ 1 M US over a 5 year period with a $ 500,000 US payment in the 5th year.
    Cascajal--1,700,000 tonnes representing a total of 260,485 ounces of gold and 13,446,000 ounces of silver. (not 43-101)
    Recent financing was at $.25, with 7 mil warrants at $.40 Cdn
    Still acquiring properties.
    $7 mil MC (+ $5 mil in needed financings?) / 16 mil oz. = $.75/oz.
    $7 mil MC (+ $5 mil in needed financings?) / 38.4 (old number from web site) mil oz. = $.31/oz.
    You get options on "approx" 8.33 ounces in the ground for 1 oz. silver's worth of stock.
    You get options on "approx" 20 ounces in the ground for 1 oz. silver's worth of stock.


    I own shares of Plexmar