I have worked for people who promote mineral enterprises and, every once in awhile I end up working for dishonest ones. I've always left when I found out what was going on, but the investors usually can't leave. By the time they realize things aren't right, it's too late, their investments are worthless.
I've fortunately, never owned and, unfortunately, never been able to short UEC stock, so I have no financial stake in what happens here but, when the SEC finally does something about Adnani I'll probably smile - just a little.
Remember 2 years ago, when King and Jetty and I debated which was better (or in King's case, worse) to buy, URZ or URG? The biggest objection to URG was always their debt and share structure - too much debt maturing too soon and too many shares, meaning new financing was going to severely dilute shareholders. URZ had roughly half the debt and 2/3 as many shares, with slightly more published reserves, so I always came down on the side of URZ. Two things have happened to change that. It looks like people caught on to the first thing, but not the second:
First, URZ was acquired by a conventional miner that has a history of losing money and issuing shares until they're nearly worthless. I see no upside to UUUU and, it appears neither do most investors.
Second, URG got lucky at Lost Creek. Head grades should already have declined seriously and production should already have peaked but, grades are dropping slowly, so, as they add header houses, production is holding up. Instead of struggling to pay off their 8.75% loan due to declining production, they're going to pay it off at the end of Q1 without breaking a sweat.
I went to Casper and spent several hours talking to their geologist. He was a little embarrassed about it, since he made the initial wrong estimate. Solubility is much higher than anticipated, making even the less rich parts of the deposit viable, so even if they haven't actually "found" more uranium, their reserves have doubled, yes - doubled. It doesn't matter if they can't calculate solubility, they're so lucky they don't have to.
That's my answer; luck changed URG's outlook, but either investors haven't caught on or they don't appreciate luck. I already had a few shares of URG but after talking to their geologist, when UUUU popped in June I sold most of my UUUU and have gradually moved the money into URG, where I'll probably keep it until their luck changes.
Too late. I suspect the strongest supporters on this board work for or are compensated by UEC. They've been reading my posts for years. If they thought they could sue me they'd have done it.
All my allegations about Lindsay and Adnani are historical facts, easily verified if you just do your research. ALL their previous companies went belly up, having produced no profits, in fact, all but 2 of them never even produced any revenues.
When the gold sector went cold and they couldn't sell any more Carlin shares and the uranium sector got hot they decided to be uranium miners. They filed their paperwork in Austin and overnight Carlin Gold became UEC which, following in their long tradition, has yet to turn a profit, and looks like it never will, but which continues paying Amir Adnani over $600,000 per year plus bonuses and stock options, as does Brazil Resources, another in the long line of profitless Lindsay & Adnani entities.
Really, you're giving your money to strangers - don't you think you should at least check up on them?
That came after 25 years of reading about global cooling. The only benefit I see to getting older is being able recognize the foolishness of the young and take their money. Subsidies will ensure solar prospers and emotions have prevented, since Three Mile Island, and will continue to prevent nuclear power from doing so. Nuclear power is feared and hated by most of the world's population and will have no impact on the Earth's climate, just on your bank account.
That's not the right question. Blackrock manages over 7000 funds, invested in thousands of equities and LLCs. I can't possibly know more than Blackrock about thousands of investments but, Blackrock's in investment banking. I'm in the minerals business. There are things I know about which MBAs in Manhattan have no idea.
A few years ago an oil and gas operation in which I was involved sold out to Blackrock - just before the peak in oil equities. Blackrock has since shuttered the operation at a massive loss. Did we know more than Blackrock? We knew with every rig in the country drilling up a storm, with thousands of wells awaiting completion, sooner or later it would end. Blackrock's twenty-something MBAs appeared never to have heard of an oilfield downturn. All they knew was the straight line estimate of our future production.
Nobody from Blackrock ever visited our oil and gas operation, and I'm pretty sure nobody from Blackrock has ever visited Palangana or any other of UEC's supposed operations. I'm pretty sure, with UEC Blackrock is going to experience another massive loss of capital.
But, since they invest in thousands of equities and operations, their loss from UEC won't be significant to their bottom line and most people will go on thinking their judgment is infallible.
I don't consider myself a basher. I have been posting what I know about Lindsay, Adnani, and UEC for several years. If you'll do your research I think you'll be able to verify everything I've posted. More important, if you're a trader instead of an investor, most of my predictions have come true. At $2.76 I was trying to find shares to short but my broker couldn't find any, and I posted that fact on this board.
Buying a share of common stock is like writing a check to a stranger, trusting him to use the money well and someday give you back more than you gave him. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Writing a check to Jack Welch would have worked out well, but Jack was well known and had a great track record. Lindsay and Adnani are less well known to most people, but have a perfect record - every company they've started has gone broke and every time the shareholders have got nothing back. In fact, it was lawsuits just like this one that got them banned from trading in Canada.
Palangana is depleted, was depleted when they bought it, that's why Uranium One sold it, and UEC doesn't have enough money to drill the deep disposal wells it needs to open another mine. It floats just enough shares every year to continue making payroll, the same MO Lindsay and Adnani have used since their early years together in Vancouver. They'll ride UEC into the ground, then move on to the next hot stock sector and start another company that will float enough shares to keep paying them $50,000/month plus bonuses and stock options.
You know, I'm sure, UEC started out as Carlin Gold, which never produced an ounce of gold and, on the brink of bankruptcy, Lindsay and Adnani changed it to UEC, not because they knew any more about uranium than they knew about gold, but because the gold sector was dead and the uranium sector was hot. You knew that, didn't you?
The purpose of the frequent reminders from 16 or 17 legal firms is to see which can generate the largest number of clients. Once that's decided the firms will consolidate their separate actions into one large class action suit. It may be lead by the firm with the most clients, the firm with the largest damages, the firm with the most money, or the firm with the most expertise. The money at stake is huge; the law firms are looking at 30% - 50% of over $100 million. This isn't a trivial thing that will just go away. It's easy to prove Lindsay and Adnani paid third parties to publish stories about the stock, a little less easy to prove the stories were untrue but, it's not a criminal case, so it rests on a preponderance of the evidence, not evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". Lindsay's and Adnani's fraudulent past will be admissible in court. if the plaintiff's lawyers get this before a jury, rather than a judge, I'd say the jury will be sympathetic.
You, as a shareholder, will be paying millions to defend that suit because the liability insurance company will claim malfeasance on the part of management. If there's an award it will bankrupt the company. If there's a settlement it will be less than $100 million but in the tens of millions of dollars, and you, as a shareholder, will pay for the settlement.
If these guys had any history of making a company work I might understand your position but Lindsay and Adnani have a long history of making companies fail and defrauding shareholders in the process. I'm thinking someday you'll wish you'd taken whatever you could get for your shares, while you could still get something.
The only ones left are the dyed in the wool sheep (pun intended) and the wolves. The sheep are silent and the wolves only come out if you try to speak facts to the sheep.
Ignoring, for a moment, management's long history of fraud and failed companies, accepting for a moment, those same fraudsters excuse for not having any production, that they're waiting for at least $70/lb, which is still at least 3 years away, and given their cash burn exceeding $3 million per quarter, the company will have to sell enough shares in the next 3 years to raise at least $40 million. At the moment that looks like another 35 million shares.
So, even if you can't force yourself to look at management's history, if you just look at the company's financial prospects, you'd have to be crazy to own this stock.
Que the wolves.
Holes in the condenser tubes, not as bad as San Onofre but still, they're just big radiators. Do we need to get rid of Mitsubishi and let Delco start building nuclear power plants? Did you ever have these kind of problems?
I used to watch the same pattern between URG and URZ. They were both thinly traded, cheap stocks, easy to manipulate. UUUU isn't quite as cheap, but it's also thinly traded. Good luck thought, trying to beat a well-financed pro.
flam·béd. The French have never learned to spell and some of the people on this board have never learned to laugh. She probably used Rohypnol.
Who's in control, World Nuclear News, or the EPA? The EPA predicts the amount of electricity generated in the US by nuclear power plants will DECREASE by 1%-2% in the next decade due to the effects of the new carbon reduction initiative. The EPA believes the new regulations will not help the nuclear power industry and - the EPA is in control.
Apparently the new EPA CO2 reduction plan will give some kind of "credits" to states that achieve reductions through the use of favored technologies, though the "credits" plan details haven't been released, it is rumored that only "nonpolluting renewables" will get "credits".
To see how the EPA expects the plan to impact nuclear power look at page 3-28, Figure 3-2, "Generation Mix". Instead of an increase, it shows a 1%- 2% drop in nuclear generating capacity. Natural gas power generation will increase about 11% and nonpolluting renewables will increase about 18%. Wind and solar will be given subsidies, while all other forms of electricity production will be taxed to pay for those subsidies.
So much for the theory that Obama and the greens were going to encourage the use of nuclear power to stop global warming.
You're absolutely right but, you're preaching logic to a practitioner of faith. He or she wants increased demand to be true, has turned it into an article of faith, and hears the sound of your voice without understanding your words.
Those are treasury shares, so they're not new, they already exist, and 76,000 out of 44.14 million shares is 0.17%, nothing. You're barking down the wrong hole.