Seeking Alpha

The Energy Report's  Instablog

The Energy Report
Send Message
The Energy Report features leading investment coverage of fossil, nuclear, renewable and alternative energies. A Streetwise Reports publication.
My company:
The Energy Report
My blog:
The Energy Report
My book:
The Energy Report Newsletter
View The Energy Report's Instablogs on:
  • Thomas Drolet Warns Of A Coming Grand Canyon Of Uranium Supply Deficit And Shares Three Ways To Profit By It

    A Grand Canyon of supply deficit is opening up in the uranium markets, with 66 nuclear reactors under construction globally and more restarting in Japan. As Russia and China shore up their supply chains in Kazakhstan and elsewhere, the rest of the world could be scrambling for new sources to keep the lights on. In this interview with The Energy Report, Thomas Drolet, head of Drolet & Associates Energy Services, illuminates junior companies in the Athabasca Basin that could be strategic sources for countries shoring up domestic supply and for majors that need replacement resources.

    The Energy Report: We have heard for years that Japan could be restarting its reactors any time. Is it really happening now?

    Thomas Drolet: It is happening; one has just restarted. The intelligence I have gathered from my visits and telephone conferences with Japanese utility people since the Fukushima-Daiichi accident indicates that the restart will be measured, formal and slow. Only 25 of the original 54 reactors will eventually be restarted, in my opinion. The reasons are varied, but include local opposition, proximity to fault lines, regulatory barriers and excessive capital reinvestment needs.

    TER: Once they are restarted, how long will it take to work through Japan's uranium supply backlog?

    TD: Utilities-and Japanese utilities are no different than North American, European or Canadian utilities-prefer to buy in the long-term markets. They usually buy somewhere between two and five years' forward supply. That has left the nine Japanese utilities that have nuclear reactors on their systems stockpiling inventory to fulfill long-term contracts. A few of those utilities paid a penalty to get out of the contracts. But the majority stuck with them, so they do have a lot of inventory on hand.

    An average utility that restarts four reactors would burn through excess uranium inventory in about five to seven years. Some reactors will start sooner than the average of the 25, and work through supplies faster, but some will take longer.

    TER: In the meantime, how much of an impact can Chinese and Indian nuclear construction have on demand in the uranium market?

    TD: Several hundred reactors are being planned or are under construction in China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates. That doesn't include the smaller reactor business in places like Turkey, Jordan, Bulgaria, Bangladesh and Vietnam. That means a Grand Canyon of a deficit in supply from known sources-approximately 30-35 million pounds per year (30-35 Mlbs/year) in what is currently a 155 + Mlbs/year market-will open up by 2020-2022. The way in which the deficit gets filled is going to be a complex process.

    TER: If it takes decades to develop a uranium resource, that puts the focus on the junior space, where we have seen a flurry of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) lately. Is that a good sign for uranium mining equity prices for the rest of this year?

    TD: First, we have to get through this doldrums period of oversupply over the next few years. We have the big existing suppliers right now in Kazakhstan, in Canada- Cameco Corp. (NYSE:CCJ)-and in Australia. Some smaller in situ recovery [ISR] suppliers work the U.S. and Australia, but that is not going to be enough to fill the approaching canyon. All of this current supply is going to be gobbled up by U.S., European, Chinese, Canadian and Indian users. We're going to have to look for new supplies from Canada, South America, Europe, the U.S. and Africa.

    We are indeed headed for a deficit situation, and it is going to be a real problem for baseload electricity supply in the world. As much as 16% of the world's electricity today is generated by nuclear reactors, and over the next decade or two, that will ramp up toward 20+%. The supply of last resort would have to be to gain access to some national strategic stockpiles which, in and of itself, would have major geopolitical implications.

    TER: Will that mean more M&A, as majors look to replenish resources? Or perhaps exploration for fresh sources?

    TD: I think both. M&A is the way of the world in the oil, gas and mineral exploration and production (E&P) game. The juniors find the uranium, prove its existence and its economic extraction potential, and then, because the juniors don't have the capital, the bigger companies step in to put their finds into operation. This process will continue in the future world of uranium as well.

    TER: Let's discuss the Athabasca Basin. What should investors be watching in the Athabasca?

    TD: I think we should be watching for investor interest to come from outside of the normal sources used to date-not from the current players. The Chinese and Indian governments and their agencies and other business enterprises are looking for long-term sustainable supplies. I think Russia will concentrate on a closer relationship with Kazakhstan to supply its turnkey projects in Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Vietnam. This shift could limit what Kazakhstan sells on the general market in the future.

    TER: Are there companies that our readers should be watching?

    TD: Ualta Energy Ltd. (private) of Canada is managed by a couple of geologists-Michael Fox of Calgary and Paul Pitman of the Toronto area-who have decades of experience in mineral exploration, including the extraction of uranium. They have discovered two potentially very large bodies of uranium mineralization hosted in porous remains at fairly shallow depths in the plains region of southern Alberta, a mining-friendly jurisdiction ranked highly by the Fraser Institute. The two zones of uranium mineralization each measure more than 15 miles in length and 2 to 8 miles in width, and have been defined by down-hole gamma ray logging in 55 drill holes drilled by oil and gas companies in southern Alberta, southeast of Calgary. The two mineralized zones show low concentrations of uranium, but the mineralization is fairly evenly distributed in the sandstone over a very extensive area. Ualta's management proposes to extract the uranium using an innovative, low-cost combination of horizontal drilling and proven ISR techniques. The size of the zones has led to estimates of U3O8 in the 500+ Mlb range, which management considers could be extracted at costs in the near-$20+/lb range. The surface ISR plans would be simple and of very low capital cost. Ualta Energy is a start-up company looking for capital. This is a new, promising company to keep our eyes on.

    TER: Do you envision it going public at any time soon?

    TD: Not until it gets private capital financing to prove out in the ground what it's seen from the oil and gas drilling core data. But soon after that, I think it's a distinct possibility it will list on the TSX.V.

    TER: What words of wisdom do you have for investors who've been waiting for uranium prices to turn around?

    TD: I'm starting to notice that some of the big suppliers, faced with low spot and long-term prices, are entering into shorter-term user contracts because they do not want to be locked into longer-term contracts at the current very low price. This is a sign that producers expect uranium prices to rise. I believe the whole supply system will soon recognize the looming demand pressure from the 66 reactors under construction worldwide. Price increases usually show up first on the spot market, and then the long-term market follows fairly quickly. That market may start to move up by the end of 2016. We will have to wait and see.

    TER: Thank you for your time.

    This interview was conducted by JT Long of The Energy Report and can be read in its entirety here.

    Thomas Drolet is the principal of Drolet & Associates Energy Services Inc. He has had a 44-year career in many phases of energy-nuclear, coal, natural gas, geothermal and distributed generation, with expertise in nuclear commercial aspects, nuclear research and development, engineering, operations and consulting. He earned a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from Royal Military College of Canada, a master's degree in nuclear technology/chemical engineering and a DIC from Imperial College, University of London, England. He spent 26 years with North America's largest nuclear utility, Ontario Hydro, in various nuclear engineering, research, international commercial and operations functions.

    Top of Form

    Want to read more Energy Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Interviews page.

    1) JT Long conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report, and The Life Sciences Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee. She owns, or her family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: none.
    2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. The companies mentioned in this interview were not involved in any aspect of the interview preparation or post-interview editing so the expert could speak independently about the sector. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services.
    3) Thomas Drolet: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I determined and had final say over which companies would be included in the interview based on my research, understanding of the sector and interview theme. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.
    4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts' statements without their consent.
    5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer.
    6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.

    Streetwise - The Energy Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (NYSE:I) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

    Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

    Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

    Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

    101 Second St., Suite 110
    Petaluma, CA 94952

    Tel.: (707) 981-8204
    Fax: (707) 981-8998

    Sep 15 2:04 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Flinders CEO Blair Way: What Tesla Needs To Know About The Graphite Sector

    Tesla's moves toward manufacturing auto and home storage has set off a buzz of misunderstandings and opportunities in the graphite space as some 40 TSX and ASX junior miners position themselves to meet anticipated increased future demand for this critical mineral. In this interview with The Gold Report, Flinders Resources CEO and President Blair Way shares the four factors to consider when analyzing a graphite company. Warning: It is a very different proposition than investing in a gold company.

    The Gold Report: What is the state of the current global graphite market and what impact might Tesla's construction of a battery Gigafactory in the desert in Nevada have on future demand for the mineral?

    Blair Way: Because graphite is used in many energy-related applications (including electric vehicles, Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors, fuel cells, solar panels and electronics ranging from smartphones to laptops), it has been categorized as a critical, strategic mineral by several governments including the United States and Europe.

    What does this really mean? At this point in time it means nothing-graphite is in oversupply and prices are low. However, if China decided to stop supplying graphite to the world, then the West would be in trouble. This is highly unlikely to ever happen. As far as the impact of the Tesla plant on the greater market, that's yet to be defined in detail, but it will create more demand for graphite, both natural and synthetic.

    TGR: How big is the graphite market?

    BW: The graphite market combined-the natural flake and synthetic market-is worth approximately $13 billion ($13B). Synthetic is 90% of that market, and natural flake graphite is 10%.

    TGR: How big is the natural flake graphite market?

    BW: The worldwide natural flake graphite market hovers around 1.1 million tons a year (1.1 Mtpa) of which 75% is from China, 11% from India, 6% from Brazil, 3% from North Korea and 5% from the rest of the world. Consumption of graphite is also approximately 1.1 Mtpa, and 65% is consumed in China. The balance of the production is consumed in Brazil and India (200,000 tons), with 100,000 tons in Europe and 100,000 tons in North America. Of this 1.1 Mtpa, more than 60% is fine and medium graphite while the balance of 40% is flake graphite. The majority of this flake graphite is micronized for the end user.

    TGR: How important is it to understand the graphite market in terms of dollar value?

    BW: World production and consumption of natural flake graphite is often claimed to be almost as large as the nickel market (1.8 Mtpa) by volume.

    The market should be considered by dollar value not just tons per annum. As a comparison, the 1.1 Mtpa of graphite is worth $1.3B while 1.8 Mtpa of nickel is worth $26B. As a new entrant to the market, nickel is a significantly larger market than graphite. So to put the graphite market in perspective, the non-Chinese natural flake graphite market is a $300 million ($300M) market. This is the market in which all the Western graphite producers (current and future) are vying for position.

    That is why a new graphite production facility must start small and build relationships in the current market while developing products that can supply the anticipated future markets. Cash flow for a graphite business must be sensible in today's market.

    TGR:What is the size of a big graphite mine and what kind of revenue stream should investors expect from a natural flake graphite mine selling into the traditional market?

    BW: A large graphite mine would be 10,000-20,000 tons per year (10-20 Ktpa) and would have a revenue stream of $10-20M. Profit could be in the range of $3-8M. This is similar in scale to a 10,000-20,000 ounce gold mine. Any graphite miner claiming a large-scale operation will not be able to achieve the sales as a new entrant to the market. It is possible that the mine could grow to a much larger size over time, but the sales must drive expansion of production. If too much concentrate is produced and it does not sell, then working capital will diminish quickly and the business will be in trouble.

    TGR: What sort of revenue should you expect from a high-purity natural flake graphite miner selling into the battery market?

    BW: High-purity natural flake graphite can and does displace some synthetic graphite. The market for synthetic graphite is about 1 Mtpa, which at prices of $5,000-10,000 per ton indicates a market size of $5-10B annually. Approximately 50% of the synthetic graphite produced is used for electrodes in the steel industry. The uses of synthetic graphite are varied, but for batteries the quantity of natural flake graphite consumed is less than 100 Ktpa. The synthetic graphite market is as private as the natural graphite market, so figures quoted can vary greatly. There are multiple new uses for high-purity graphite beyond conventional batteries, so there is huge potential for the growing market for high-purity natural flake graphite.

    TGR: We often hear about the importance of offtake agreements. Can you explain to us the important distinction between offtake agreements and sales agreements?

    BW: Offtake agreements are not sales agreements-they are non-binding agreements to purchase future production if a number of provisions are met. A sales agreement is a commitment to quantity and price per ton for a set period of time. Most junior mining companies are not signing sales agreements because graphite consumers want to lock in prices below known market prices.

    To evaluate the offtakes you have to ask the questions: Did the buyer invest hard cash in the graphite business to facilitate the start of production? Does the contract with the buyer protect the producer or the buyer? Is there a guaranteed minimum or maximum price when the market price is constantly changing? Is there a minimum price in the agreement? Is it a take-or-pay agreement? What are the escape clauses for the buyer to get out of the agreement? Does the agreement cover all grades produced by the graphite producer, or is it just the grades the buyer requires? What happens to the products that the buyer is not interested in?

    There is little to no hedging of graphite because it is not a publicly traded commodity, and it is very unlikely a trader will hedge for a producer. If a trader does offer to buy at a set price it would be at historically low prices. This will benefit the trader and not the producer. Typical refractory customers do not buy graphite in large enough quantities to justify locking in prices. They can also stockpile if required to ride out higher pricing. Even high graphite prices do not have a huge impact on overall pricing of the end product because graphite, by cost, is a small part of the cost of the products.

    TGR: One of the buzzwords we hear when companies in the graphite space tell their story is "graphene" and the potential for their company to one day produce it. How important should graphene exposure be to an investor or speculator when deciding what companies in the graphite space to invest in?

    BW: Graphene is 10-20 years away from being commercially viable, so one cannot justify a graphite mine based on the graphene market. The graphene market will take an extremely long time to develop products for everyday use. Additionally, a small amount of graphite goes a long way in making graphene.

    There are two kinds of graphene. One is made from chemical vapor deposition, in which a graphene coating is made on top of another substrate, then the substrate is removed, leaving only the graphene. Most of the graphene being used today is made that way. That is the graphene the electronic industry wants because it's ultra-high purity and can be easily controlled.

    The lower-cost way uses natural graphite as the precursor. That market will take longer to develop, but it will be a bigger market because that kind of graphene can be used in the more practical, higher-volume products that we use every day. As a graphite producer, it is important to be part of the R&D process and to drive it towards commercialization. Flinders Resources Ltd. (OTCPK:FLNXF)[FDR:TSX.V] is an active part of this R&D process supplying graphite to research facilities.

    Graphene will not have positive impacts on a graphite producer's cash flow until commercialization has taken place and there is a real market for it. Graphene will be produced by specialists, not miners. Miners will supply the materials to enable graphene manufacturing.

    TGR: What should be on an investor's checklist when considering a potential investment or speculation in the graphite space?

    BW: Production of graphite is only one step to becoming a graphite producer. Sales must be secured to ensure all concentrate produced will sell. The market is a closed market and if sales are not secured for production, selling product is extremely difficult. Can the company sell its product at a profit?

    There are four key elements to determine the quality of a graphite company:

    1) Capital costs of the project:

    Capital expenditures (MUTF:CAPEX) is a huge driver and this is what really kills a project-especially a low-revenue business like graphite. Consider many nickel laterite projects and how typically the first owner runs out of cash, and it is the second or even third owner that actually makes the business work. The capex kills the first owner almost every time. Aluminum is similar too. Both these commodities have a huge market to supply; graphite does not. The scale for graphite is much smaller, but the same elements of capex are at play.

    2) Marketing/production rate:

    Bigger is not better-except it is often required to justify high capex. The market does not support the mega graphite projects (anything over 10-20 Ktpa). If the company cannot make money at modest rates, the project will most likely fail. The marketing section of most feasibility studies to date do not have a credible source of information. If a gold project was to sign off its own marketing section of a feasibility study claiming to use an average selling price of gold at $2,000 per ounce, there would be an uproar. That is what appears to be happening in graphite for most studies.

    There are no expert traders who can or will provide an independent opinion on the market for a particular project's product. If they did, it would not serve the project well. That is one of the reasons we approached the Woxna project in Sweden the way we have-to test the market in real time to be sure we understand it. You could never do this for a base metal or precious metal, but the scale of graphite is such you can and we have. Being a graphite producer and selling into the market means we know more than most about the market.

    3) Operating cost (Opex):

    Can the product be sold at a profit for all fractions of the production? Every deposit produces a mixed bag of concentrate with fine, medium and large flakes. The large flakes will naturally have the higher carbon content and the medium less and fine less again. The quantity of each will have a big impact on the average selling price. Sometimes the fines do not sell at all-or for very little. This can increase the cost of the higher value concentrate. All producers hoping to start up must have a high-purity strategy. They will not be profitable until they can value add all the concentrates.

    4) Value adding the concentrate to increase margins:

    Does the company have a credible high-purity strategy-a flow sheet defined and tested? Anyone can purify with a leaching plant or thermal, but it can be very costly. The flow sheet must not only prove technical success but also be economic. It must be less than $1,500/ton to produce to 99%+ carbon. This is rarely, if ever, discussed in the high-level, high-purity strategies. To ask a lab to confirm it can be done is almost worthless; the economics must be defined. All graphite samples can be purified to 99%+. The company must have done the work to define the economics and how to build and operate the high-purity plant. To discuss what purity can be achieved through flotation is a start, as the higher the carbon content feeding the HP plant, the lower the cost of the HP concentrate.

    TGR: As an investor/speculator, what questions would you have for companies when evaluating their feasibility (FS) and preliminary feasibility study (NYSE:PFS)?

    BW: These are requirements under the NI 43-101 regulatory framework for all Toronto Stock Exchange-listed public companies. It is a requirement of greenfield projects to demonstrate technical and economic viability. A feasibility study is the final study before commencing detailed design and construction of the project, so it must include the permits to construct and operate the mine and facility. These studies are designed for large projects such as gold, copper, silver, nickel or zinc projects. Typically these are mines and processing facilities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build and generate revenues of hundreds of million dollars a year. A PFS can cost in excess of $5M and an FS can cost upwards of $10-20M for the most basic of projects.

    When conducting a PFS or FS for a graphite project, these study costs are prohibitive. The revenue stream for the largest graphite mine in production today would be about $30M a year. This is the largest graphite mine in the world and it is located in China. The next largest mine is about 10 Ktpa, and that equates to a revenue stream of $10M a year. You will see many FS and PFS for graphite companies creating large revenue stream models as this is the only way to rationalize the capital costs to get these facilities in operation and build an impressive story for promotion. This is the challenge for graphite.

    TGR: How relevant is the marketing component of a graphite study?

    BW: In my opinion the marketing sections in the FS and PFS technical reports published by public companies are rubbish. There is no authority to go to for understanding the graphite business. There are a number of providers who publish reports on the graphite business, selling these reports for over $5,000, but the actual information on the market and actual buyers is minimal to non-existent. The reports are based on voluntary surveys sent to private businesses that are not obliged to supply accurate data, and in some cases it is beneficial to provide incorrect data.

    These private organizations do not want their business to be known so they provide misinformation; the reports lack accurate data. Often the marketing sections of the studies published by graphite companies are signed off by insiders of the company. I have seen the marketing section signed off by the CEO-this is not independent and is highly biased. It is almost impossible to get real marketing information because the traders benefit by the confidential nature of the market. The commercial publications are paid-for publications, and they are not bound by any regulations to be reporting facts.

    When you study these detailed reports on the production, which are also based on very poor information gathering techniques, and marketing you find limited detail on the actual end users and who buys the products and what they pay for it. This is due to the confidential nature of the graphite market. There is no way to accurately understand it without being in the business and selling product into the market.

    TGR: Can you share some insight into what to look out for when interpreting metallurgical results?

    BW: Many companies press release the results of bench scale or "pilot plant" test work and how they are achieving carbon contents as high as 97% or even 98% from flotation. These results are achievable in a full scale flotation plant but the engineering firm must have demonstrated experience in designing and building a graphite processing plant.

    Another important point is the "pilot plants" purported to belong to the various companies claiming to have operated a pilot plant are actually modular plants constructed by a lab using the various components they have in inventory. This "pilot plant" is assembled using these components and then dismantled once the test is complete. This is not the same as many companies in other commodities that actually build small plants that test the flow sheet at reasonable scale on their sites. No graphite company has done this to date.

    Flake size distribution in the lab-scale tests can vary quite significantly to the real-world, full-scale facility. Flotation of graphite is tricky. The natural flakes float best but as the feed is processed, more fine material is created during milling, and intermediate grinding impacts flake size distribution negatively. What this means is it is most likely that flotation will produce a mixed bag of flake sizes. Generally a 30-40% distribution of each fraction is expected. Each ore will perform slightly differently but there will always be a decent percentage of fine and medium flakes. The problem with this is that impurities also float into these medium and fines, which reduces carbon content to the low 90% range or even into the 80s for the fines. This results in a number of products when sorted into fine, medium and coarse and the associated carbon content of the fines in the mid-80s, mediums in the low 90s and large at 94%. The large flake is most valuable and the medium and fine will bring the average selling price down. It is unrealistic to expect to produce coarse, medium and fine concentrates all at 94%.

    TGR: How important is flake size?

    BW: Flake size is important primarily because during flotation the flakes liberate (float) most efficiently and these will yield the highest carbon content. As the flake size diminishes, typically the entrained impurities increase and the carbon content goes down. Customers specify large flake often to ensure they get the carbon content, even though they often grind or micronize the flake graphite for their processes.

    Even spherical (NASDAQ:SP) graphite, which often is thought must come from large flake, is misunderstood. SP is very fine graphite due to the mechanical process to create it. It must be natural flake graphite but it does not need to be large or even medium flake.

    Some customers do require large flake sizes, but that is less significant than what is published in the industry. Carbon content is the most important factor in defining the value of the graphite concentrate. Some customers will pay a premium for micronized natural flake with high carbon content. The important issue is what fraction of the total concentrate product is high carbon content?

    TGR: What are the flake size designations?

    BW: Coarse, natural flake graphite is plus-50 mesh/300 μ, medium flake is plus-80 mesh/180 μ and fine flake is minus-80 mesh/180 μ.

    TGR: How are prices for natural flake today?

    BW: Prices are down for all natural flake graphite. This is due to the drop in demand, which is a direct result of the decline in the steel sector. Current medium to large flake 94% graphite is selling for less than $700 per ton and, in some cases, just not selling as there is a surplus of concentrate currently. Buyers are making low offers to producers to secure cheap concentrate for the future market.

    TGR: How important is resource size?

    BW: The resource size is not as important as many would like the public to believe. Graphite is not that rare so it is quite easy to find a large deposit that would deliver 10-20 years life of mine for a 10-20 Ktpa business. It is important to keep in mind the size of the graphite market when compared to the size of the resource. For example, 100% of the graphite market in Europe could be met by a resource of 1 Mt at 10% Cg. So 10 years and 100% European supply is 10Mt at 10% Cg. This is for 100% of the market which, of course, is unrealistic. A new entrant to a market would be lucky to get 10-20% market share. To identify hundreds of millions of tons of resource is not as valuable as is the case for base metals or precious metals.

    TGR: How important is the grade of the resource?

    BW: The resource grade is important primarily due to mining costs. The lower the grade, the more material that must be moved to produce a concentrate. Typically a lower grade deposit will be more costly to mine. Anything under 5% is a concern given that there are many graphite deposits in the world with higher grades.

    TGR: When analyzing any deposit, we always look for the fatal flaw. What is really important in a graphite deposit?

    BW: The location, configuration and metallurgy of the deposit are critical. The deposit must be near all key infrastructure, including sealed roads, inexpensive electricity, port facilities, and preferably an existing processing facility. To include the cost for roads, electricity or long transportation distances to port and customers in capex will severely impact a new graphite project. These three elements will have a significant negative impact on both capex and opex. Sunk cost on the infrastructure is the most cost effective way for a graphite business to establish itself. Equally important is access to a decent work force and skilled labor for maintaining the mine and processing facility.

    The deposit must be easy to mine-high grade and low stripping ratios are critical. The metallurgy of the deposit is hardest to understand-who is actually testing the deposit? Have they ever designed an operating graphite plant? What experience is there to actually assess the metallurgy and design an efficient full scale flow sheet?

    TGR: How do you purify natural flake graphite? Do you use a chemical leach or thermal?

    BW: Leaching is the chemical breaking down of impurities in a flotation concentrate and typically uses hydrofluoric, hydrochloric and sulphuric acid as a minimum to achieve the high-purity concentrations. These acids must be used to consume the impurities that cannot be removed by flotation. This can be costly and the cost per ton of 99.9% concentrate can range from $500-3,000/ton, depending on concentrate feed carbon content, mineralogical compositions, operation conditions, permitting requirements and availability of acids.

    Thermal purification is simply the heating of a concentrate in a special oven to 3,000 to 4,000˚ C to burn off all impurities. This is simpler but generally more costly because of the high energy requirements to heat the concentrate. The costs of this can vary from $1,500-10,000/ton, depending on energy cost.

    TGR: Where does Flinders fit in the graphite mining landscape?

    BW: Flinders Resources is the only Western public company with a permitted, fully operational modern mine and production facility able to produce natural flake graphite and is in a strong position to place itself as a supplier of choice for the rapidly expanding and game changing lithium-ion battery energy storage.

    The company has been working on optimizing a flow sheet to produce high-purity graphite that was substantially developed in the early 2000s by the previous owner of the Woxna project. We are negotiating with existing high-purity technological providers.

    Flinders has a market cap of less than CA$10M; CA$4M is backed by cash. With a fully constructed, permitted and producing plant and mine, zero debt and cash on hand, the company is well positioned to leverage its first-mover advantage to concentrate its resources on research to produce high-purity grade graphite and initiate the relevant permitting.

    TGR: Thank you, Blair, for your time.

    This interview was conducted by the Staff of The Gold Report and can be read in its entirety here.

    Blair Way, CEO, president and director of Flinders Resources, has over 25 years of management experience within the resources and construction industry throughout Australasia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Prior to joining Flinders Resources Way was vice president of project development for Ventana Gold (Vancouver), advancing projects in Colombia. Way also previously served as president and project director for OceanaGold Philippines, project manager with Hatch Associates (Brisbane) and project director for BHP's Major Projects division (QNI Pty Ltd) in Townsville, Queensland. Way holds a Bachelor of Science in geology from Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada, a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Queensland, Australia, and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

    1) JT Long edited this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report and The Life Sciences Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee. She owns, or her family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
    2) Flinders Resources is a banner advertiser on Streetwise Reports.
    3) Blair Way had final approval of the content and is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements which are believed to be true as at the date provided, based on information currently available to Mr. Way and any statements or opinions made by Mr. Way are an expression of opinion only and for information purposes only. This interview is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity that is a citizen or resident or located in any locality, state, province, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would require any registration or licensing within such jurisdiction. This interview does not constitute or form a part of, and should not be construed as a recommendation, offer, solicitation or invitation to subscribe for, underwrite or otherwise acquire securities in any jurisdiction. Readers are encouraged to do further research or seek advice from qualified advisors. Information contained in this interview contains forward looking statements which are subject to a number of factors, risks and uncertainties and actual results could differ materially from those expressed in any of the forward looking statements, including, among other things, Flinders has yet to generate a profit from its activities; there can be no guarantee that the estimates of quantities or qualities of minerals disclosed in Flinders' public record will be economically recoverable; uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future; competition with other companies within the mining industry; the success of Flinders is largely dependent upon the performance of its directors and officers and Flinders' ability to attract and train key personnel; changes in world metal markets and equity markets beyond Flinders' control; mineral reserves are, in the large part, estimates and no assurance can be given that the anticipated tonnages and grades will be achieved or that the indicated level of recovery will be realized; production rates and capital and other costs may vary significantly from estimates; the Company's preliminary economic assessment is no longer current or valid and the Company has no plans to complete a new preliminary economic assessment, a pre-feasibility or feasibility study on the project, as a result there is an increased risk of technical and economic failure for the Woxna graphite project; unexpected geological conditions; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals from government authorities; all phases of a mining business present environmental and safety risks and hazards and are subject to environmental and safety regulation, and rehabilitation and restitution costs; Flinders does not maintain insurance against environmental risks; and management of Flinders have experience in mineral exploration but may lack all or some of the necessary technical training and experience to successfully develop and operate a mine. Although Mr. Way believes that the expectations reflected in the Forward-Looking Statements, and the assumptions on which such Forward-Looking Statements are made, are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on Forward-Looking Statements, as there can be no assurance that the plans, intentions or expectations upon which the Forward-Looking Statements are based will occur. Forward-Looking Statements herein are made as at the date hereof, and unless otherwise required by law, neither Flinders nor Mr. Way intend, or assume any obligation, to update these Forward-Looking Statements.
    4) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer.
    5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.

    Streetwise - The Energy Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (NYSE:I) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

    Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

    Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

    Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

    101 Second St., Suite 110
    Petaluma, CA 94952

    Tel.: (707) 981-8204
    Fax: (707) 981-8998

    Sep 08 7:16 PM | Link | Comment!
  • NexGen Energy: A Bold New Uranium Venture For A World In Short Supply

    NexGen Energy Ltd. has a strong, well-focused uranium project located in the cornucopia of the Athabasca Basin. Without hype, CEO Leigh Curyer and Corporate Development Manager Travis McPherson, part of an experienced team of "pure-play uranium professionals," make the case for investment in a project with obvious legs.

    The Energy Report: Will the no-longer hypothetical restart of the Japanese nuclear reactors move uranium prices into the production range?

    Leigh Curyer: The restart of the first reactor since Fukushima is very good for our business, psychologically. Japan does not have the capacity to fill its power grid with fossil fuels. It needs nuclear power to provide the country with sustainable and cheap power. On top of that, the carbon emissions from fossil fuels are not sustainable globally. Another positive of the reactor restart, beyond the psychological effects, is the fact that there was a fear that Japan was going to flood the market with some of its stockpiled uranium. But that fear has now been predominately removed. There are a number of Japanese reactors in the final stages of safety review and approval, which should only help to eliminate that risk of Japan's stockpiles entering the spot market.

    The demand side issue is much bigger than Japan. There are 63 reactors under construction worldwide. Nuclear energy is forecast to grow at 2-4% per annum globally according to both the International Energy Association (IEA) and the World Nuclear Association (WNA). On the supply side, roughly 90% of the world's primary production is either under a severe technical or sovereign risk. There have been major interruptions on the supply side, with Energy Resources of Australia Ltd.'s (NYSE:ASX) Ranger Deeps not going ahead, and supply interruptions at the Olympic Dam mine (BHP Billiton Ltd. [BHP:NYSE; BHPLF:OTCPK]) and also at the Rössing mine. Obviously, the world needs more uranium mines to come on line-particularly mines with low cost structures from stable jurisdictions. Saskatchewan is arguably the best jurisdiction in the world for mining, and specifically uranium mining. Additionally, it is the home of high grade and high tonnage. Grades seen in the Athabasca Basin are regularly in excess of 100 times that of average global production. Cameco Corp. (CCO:TSX; CCJ:NYSE) remains one of the lowest-cost producers of uranium due to the grades seen at its mines.

    TER: Do you have a prediction on where the price of uranium is headed?

    LC: It's hard to put a specific number on any commodity in my view, but at NexGen Energy Ltd. (OTCQX:NXGEF) we feel strongly that the price of uranium will rise based on the worldwide production cost structure. Based on our estimates, marginal global production costs on average are in the mid-US$60s per pound (mid-US$60/lb); hence, the current spot and term price remaining below this level means that production should start to come offline as term contracts expire. It's a fairly straightforward supply-demand equation really.

    TER: Is NexGen Energy counting on the price stabilizing above US$60/lb, or can you deal with the price being a little lower?

    LC: NexGen's Arrow project does not yet have a feasibility study or an NI 43-101 resource estimate, but we are confident that, given the early development results at Arrow and the technical characteristics it hosts, the project will be incredibly competitive on a world scale. Arrow is an extremely high-grade asset situated amid comfortable mining conditions. The mineralization is hosted in competent basement rocks commencing from 100 meters (100m) from surface, which creates the opportunity for simple and traditional mining scenarios as opposed to the challenging conditions Cameco has had to overcome at its Cigar Lake mine on the east side of the Basin. Our focus moving forward is to define the mineralization with a resource estimate in the first half of 2016, and then determine the project's economic potential soon thereafter.

    Travis McPherson: There is a good analogy to Arrow on the east side of the Basin with a mine called Eagle Point, which is owned and operated on a 100% basis by Cameco. The geological characteristics of the Eagle Point mine are similar to our Arrow project, even in its early stage of development. Eagle Point is producing about 4 million pounds a year (4 Mlb/year) at a grade of 0.57-0.6% uranium at approximately 500m below surface, with plans to go toward 800m.

    Cameco wouldn't be producing out of that mine unless it was competitive in terms of its operating costs. Although we still need to prove it with the necessary studies, because Arrow is high grade, basement-hosted and land-based, we believe it will also be competitive on the global stage, just like Eagle Point.

    TER: You have been reporting lots of good news from Arrow. What are the details?

    LC: Late in the winter 2015 drill program, we released an assay on Hole AR-15-44B at Arrow that had 56.5m at 11.55% U3O8, including 20m at 20.68%-and even included 1m at 70%. The continuous GT (grade times thickness) of that hole is one of the largest on public record for a basement-hosted uranium intercept in the Basin.

    We were so encouraged with these results that we decided to be quite bold in testing the extensions of Arrow to the southwest of 44B. A stepout of 15m is considered bold in this particular environment. We have stepped out to 50, 100 and 210m to the southwest of 44B, and hit intensive, off-scale radioactivity in all three of those stepouts. Now, for the remainder of the summer program, we intend to further define this new high-grade mineralized extension within Arrow. To be frank, Arrow continues to surpass what we previously estimated. It feels like we are still just scratching the surface of Arrow.

    TER: What clued you in to the existence of this bonanza?

    LC: One, it's located in the Athabasca Basin, which is the home of high grades and high tonnage. We spent three years reviewing over 200 properties in the Basin prior to starting NexGen. We selected the properties in NexGen's portfolio because they straddle the edge of the Athabasca Basin boundary and also go into the Basin. This is where you find your most economic mineralization. Additionally, the portfolio covers all the known conductor corridors in the southwest. Finally, the majority of the properties in the southwest were put together by a well-respected geologist based on scientific merit.

    Our geophysical studies revealed numerous strong anomalies on the Rook 1 property. And with the very first drill hole on the Arrow geophysical anomaly, we hit mineralization. We then stepped out aggressively, upward of 200m, and continued to hit mineralization. That was in February 2014. Since then, we have drilled a number of holes using a deliberate drilling methodology, with the goal of Arrow becoming the lowest-cost discovery of size in the Basin's history. We have hit in 95% of holes drilled across a very wide grid.

    TER: Were you able to pick up these properties at a discount due to the Fukushima situation?

    LC: They were not as expensive as they otherwise would have been. But also, with the technical team that we have on board, the seller was more than happy to come under our tutelage given our experience in the uranium sector. We have formed great partnerships through the development of NexGen.

    TER: What level of operational and financial experience does your management team bring to the business?

    LC: Our team covers all facets of discovery, feasibility, permitting and production. Chris McFadden, our chairman, was the head of business development at Rio Tinto Plc (RIO:NYSE; RIO:ASX; RIO:LSE; RTPPF:OTCPK), covering the uranium division and operations. On the Board of Directors, we also have Craig Perry, who is a geologist and was at Rio Tinto and then Oxiana Ltd., which was merged with Zinifex Ltd. in a $12 billion deal to create OZ Minerals Ltd. . We also have Jim Currie from a mining engineering perspective; he won the 2014 E.A. Scholz Award for excellence in mine development for his involvement at New Afton (New Gold Inc. [NGD:TSX; NGD:NYSE.MKT]). We really could not have a better-qualified mining engineer on the board to oversee the move into production.

    I have worked in the uranium sector since 2002 as a chief financial officer for Southern Cross Resources. While there, I worked on feasibility and permitting of the Honeymoon project in South Australia, as well as a number of merger-and-acquisition transactions, which eventually led to us forming Uranium One Inc. I left six months after that transaction and spent the next three years in private equity, working for First Reserve International and looking at uranium projects around the globe from a technical, economic and sovereign risk perspective. I have generated project capital for mines of the size and magnitude that Arrow will likely be.

    When we discovered Arrow we approached Garrett Ainsworth, and he came on board as our vice president of exploration. Garrett's contribution to the discovery of Patterson Lake South (now Triple R) is evident from the Association for Mineral Exploration, British Columbia (AME BC) Colin Spence award that he won in 2013. Given Garrett's track record in uranium discovery in the southwest Athabasca Basin, we approached him after only eight holes, and he immediately agreed. Given our hit rate and the rate of development at Arrow, it is clear that he and the rest of the technical team understand the mineralization.

    TER: What is the stage of the Arrow permitting process?

    LC: We are about to conduct baseline environmental monitoring studies at Arrow, which will form the basis of an eventual environmental application. First, we have to define the size of the asset, which we will get an initial feel for with the maiden resource planned for H1/16. Then we can get a better idea about initial aspects of mineability, which will provide a basis for preliminary scoping work and eventual feasibility studies. Once we have a firm idea of the scope and scale of the project we will work on submitting permits.

    TER: Do you see any obstacles to permitting?

    LC: Not any major obstacles. Saskatchewan is, in my opinion, the best jurisdiction in the world in which to permit and operate a uranium mine. Arrow is conventional, with simple metallurgy, which should help simplify the process. Due to the fact that the mineralization doesn't affect any water body, Arrow is showing the characteristics of an underground operation, as are all the current operating mines in Saskatchewan. Mineralization starts from 100m of surface down to 920m, and is open in every direction. It is hosted in competent basement rocks the whole way, which makes it amenable to traditional underground mining methods. We do not foresee any major land or water surface issues.

    During the 1990s, the Cluff Lake mine, located 70 kilometers (70km) northwest of Arrow, produced 60 Mlb of 0.9% uranium. The region's regulators are familiar with permitting a mine and plant in the southwest. The nearest town is 155km away, so our footprint will have no impact on human or agricultural activities. The southwest Basin is actually an ideal place for permitting a uranium mine and mill.

    TER: What is the mining infrastructure like in the area?

    LC: The biggest piece of infrastructure we will need is a mill. Given that there's a brownfields site 70km to the northwest at Cluff Lake, and the fact that the area where Arrow is located is actually quite benign, there are a number of sites that would be appropriate for a mill. Additionally, given the size profile of Arrow, the area would justify its own mill.

    As far as other infrastructure goes, there is a 240km all-weather highway that runs right near our project, which was put in place just to service the Cluff Lake mine. Power is located about 80km from Arrow. There is a strong labor force in the region, and also access to water. We will need to develop some infrastructure at the site, but it is not a grassroots situation; nothing too costly or challenging.

    TER: How is NexGen financing these plays?

    LC: We have issued equity. In April, we closed a $27.3M bought-deal financing, which brought in a lot of institutions from outside Canada. We are well financed through 2017 given our current development plan and our treasury. We also have some warrants that are currently well in the money that could extend the financing period even longer.

    Going into production, we will, of course, need a larger capital component. But given our team's background in mining finance and development, I believe we are well situated for that when the time comes. Arrow's characteristics show that it could be one of the most desirable uranium projects in the world, and these types of projects attract capital and get built.

    TER: When are you looking to go into production?

    LC: It is quite early to be precise with that figure, but we believe post-2020 would be an accurate schedule, and one that fits well with our forecast of uranium fundamentals. Based on estimates from the IEA and the WNA, post-2020 is when major supply deficits are expected, given relatively stable demand growth and a very challenging supply. We will have our hands full until then, doing the feasibility study and permitting, and optimizing the economics of the project.

    TER: Do you anticipate taking on any debt before going into production?

    LC: As we are pre-revenue, taking on a debt facility is challenging given the interest and principal payments that must be made. We are focused on equity financing for the time being, as it is the most compatible form of capital for our business strategy at this time. When the time to push the production button arrives, we will assess the best financing option at that time, and that could include a debt component. But again, much more work is needed to determine that.

    TER: Do you anticipate selling the Arrow project to a major, or do you intend to take it forward yourselves?

    LC: NexGen's management and board have all the skills needed to take this project through to production. We will bring in additional uranium professionals at certain points of development as needed and as the project develops into engineering and permitting.

    We are pure-play uranium professionals who feel fortunate to be working on an asset like Arrow. Given the early stage of its development, it would be hard for the board to recommend a bid because we don't know the true size of Arrow yet. Additionally, with our full land holdings, we believe the potential for multiple Arrows is self evident, in which case our properties could create one of the most valuable uranium land holdings in the Basin.

    TER: What's the next milestone in the development of your project?

    LC: The initial resource on Arrow will help give us an idea of the size and grade profile of the asset. We will continue to post drill results throughout the fall and into early next year. Those results will culminate in the initial resource, which will emerge in Q1/16 or Q2/16. A consequence of the large stepouts is that we now have to do a lot more drilling between AR-15-44B and the 210m stepout to incorporate the extended strike length into a resource model. We are busy executing our plan to do that at the moment.

    Because we have been so efficient with drilling, as a result of utilizing directional drilling, we are going to expand the summer program to take advantage of the summer conditions, and also to have enough pierce points in the southwest strike extensions to include that in the maiden resource estimate.

    TER: How has your stock been performing? Why should investors buy NexGen now instead of waiting for more developments?

    LC: The stock has been performing very well compared to its peers. We are up about 65% from the start of the year, but still feel there is a lot of upside remaining in the price. I think the speed at which NexGen has developed has caught the market off guard, even though we have doubled on the year. People might ask, with only 50-odd holes, how can we predict such size and scale at Arrow? The unique thing about our drilling methodology is that it's very rare to start out with such a bold stepout program across a uniform grid and hit mineralization in 95% of the holes. It tells you two things: One, our technical team understands the geology and the system well; and two, the system itself is quite large. This is highlighted by the recent tripling of the high-grade strike extension with the 50, 100 and 210m stepouts.

    The other thing about Arrow is, because the mineralization is in three parallel panels, when we drill one hole, it goes through two, if not three, of the panels simultaneously. We get two or three holes for the price of one. We have amassed a considerable amount of information quickly.

    The awareness of what we are doing has not yet fully permeated into the market. And every new drill hole exceeds our previous estimates for the scope of Arrow. Every drill hole is extremely exciting, and potentially game-changing for the company and share price. It's a very exciting time!

    TER: Thank you both for your time.

    This interview was conducted by Peter Bryne of The Energy Report and it can be read in its entirety here.

    Leigh R. Curyer, chief executive officer and director of NexGen Energy, has more than 18 years' experience in the resources and corporate sector. Mr. Curyer was previously the chief financial officer and head of corporate development of Southern Cross Resources (now Uranium One). In addition, for three years Mr. Curyer was head of corporate development for Accord Nuclear Resource Management, assessing uranium projects worldwide for First Reserve Corporation, a global energy-focused private equity and infrastructure investment firm. Mr. Curyer's uranium project assessment experience has been focused on assets located in Canada, Australia, the U.S., Africa, Central Asia and Europe, incorporating operating mines, advanced development projects and exploration prospects. While chief financial officer of Southern Cross Resources, Mr. Curyer managed the exploration, permitting and feasibility study of the Honeymoon Uranium project in South Australia, ensuring full compliance with NI 43-101 reporting, and was involved in the raising of over $250M of equity in North America, the U.S., Europe and Australia. Mr. Curyer is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia.

    Travis G. McPherson, NexGen Energy's corporate development manager, has worked in the global mining sector across a variety of commodities and jurisdictions for six years. Most recently he was head of corporate development for a TSX-listed gold producer and developer, where he was involved in a variety of corporate transactions including acquisitions, mine permitting and development, project finance and corporate budgeting. Mr. McPherson began his career in the natural resource group at a leading independent investment bank in Canada. He holds a bachelor's degree in commerce from the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia.

    Want to read more The Energy Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Streetwise Interviews page.

    1) Peter Byrne conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report and The Life Sciences Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. He owns, or his family owns, shares of the company mentioned in this interview: None.
    2) The following companies mentioned in this interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: NexGen Energy Ltd.
    3) Leigh Curyer and Travis McPherson had final approval of the content and are wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. Opinions expressed are the opinions of Leigh Curyer and Travis McPherson, and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers.
    4) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer.
    5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.

    Streetwise - The Energy Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (NYSE:I) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

    Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

    Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

    Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

    101 Second St., Suite 110
    Petaluma, CA 94952

    Tel.: (707) 981-8204
    Fax: (707) 981-8998

    Sep 08 2:59 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


  • " $INPCF continues to prove out its business model"- Steven Salz. Read more:
    3 days ago
  • " $POEFF plans to test three intervals that may be hydrocarbon bearing"- Bill Newman. Read more:
    3 days ago
  • " $UUUU has a strong balance sheet and a cash flow-neutral plan"- Colin Healey. Read more:
    3 days ago
More »

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.