This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

CTS - Contact Resources

Jump to new
YOUNG_TRADER said:
Was expecting a bit more feedback re my research,

Queries, comments etc

Anyway Kennarico is right, 65c and 70c look like really strong support levels, 70c particularly,

There's nearly 800k buying at or above 70c
vs
225k on the sell all up!
Click to expand...
CTS has been well and trluy overlooked by the market. Over the next couple of years it is likely to become a low cost uranium producer without the political constraints that we have here. Your research as always is top notch. Thanks YT.
DYOR
 
YOUNG_TRADER said:
Was expecting a bit more feedback re my research,

Queries, comments etc

Anyway Kennarico is right, 65c and 70c look like really strong support levels, 70c particularly,

There's nearly 800k buying at or above 70c
vs
225k on the sell all up!
Click to expand...
YT, the crowd is assessing and probably distributing to their mates. Uranium is off the boil at the moment, which may be another factor. 70 should be some support, but it did leap pretty quickly, don't discount the day trader influence of T+3, momentum buying, etc. When all things considered 65 looks to be best support pending any unusual market action. Like a devastating earthquake here in Peru! Not feeling like it right at this moment.
 
Appreciated your research once again YT. When u becomes the flavour of the month again then this stoc may gather more momentum. However, oil needs to keep rising as this is the only way the heads of govt. will really consider altenate energy. if oil drops in price industry considers better the devil you know and plod along as such and if more oil strikes are discovered ( unlikely) then oil as a whole will decrease in price so once again a negative for U .
Oil hits 80 the gloves come off with more press worldwide for alternate sources and up goes cts.
 
Dr.S, Your premise is based on which country and oil? Australia? This is an international company not mining or trying to sell in Melbs.....

Perhaps I'm missing some detail here...
 
I don't know Kenna,

I reckon 70c is stronger than 65c for 2 reasons,

First I always considered 70c as the confirmation/breakout level not 65c

Second all the buy depth is above 70c,

Also Dr Stock, I don't want momnetum on this stock,

Just feedback on what I posted, thoughts etc, helps me to check, re-check research, correct errors, etc etc

I think the post by Bliimp was particularly interesting, I have spoken to my broker about this link

He agrees, CTS is not a fit for ARV at all and is intrigued by the Mega connection
 
YOUNG_TRADER said:
Was expecting a bit more feedback re my research,

Queries, comments etc

Anyway Kennarico is right, 65c and 70c look like really strong support levels, 70c particularly,

There's nearly 800k buying at or above 70c
vs
225k on the sell all up!
Click to expand...

Disappointing? I am disappointing it too. A reality Check:

80c Aussie dollars?, have not sent it for a long time, and won't see it in the near future.

$15-$30/lb valuation? You are stilling living in April

Plus statement like "$500m USD=$625 AUD", and confusion between dollar and cent, $1.44c-$2.70c, $1.10c, $2.20c.

Very disorganized analysis, like cut and paste from somewhere else.

I cannot find YT's trademark here. I believe YT can do much better than this.

Before I draw intensive fires from YT supporters wasting everybody's time, I have to say, I only look at negative aspects. Considering I agree with everything else YT said.
 
What are you on about Dane?

I'm being conservative

I'm using 80c AUD/USD

If I use 70c/75c its more value for us, so I choose to be conservative


Uranium price, $15lb - $30lb is TAKEOVER VALUE! Not Spot price

I spent hrs doing the research so don't appreciate cut and paste comment

$500m USD = $625 AUD @ 80c AUD/USD

Not sure what your on about,

So much for constuctive feedback
 
What's your valuation? It's easy to criticise, much harder to contribute.

EV per pound is going to be highly subjective and is going to be the material driver for this kind of valuation. What EV/lb would you use?

I also think that using 80c is reasonable given AUDUSD is currently at almost an ATH. However it won't materially effect the valuation given the EV/lb is so subjective.
 

Unfortunately some people will always destructively criticize your efforts. It would be better to not even acknowledge the behavior. It reminds me of all the crap I was copping from people in my 5000 to 50,000 thread in twelve months. Just keep it impersonal... I didn't read all your research but it basically says many good reasons to Buy... which is something I did a while ago (buy that is)... Kudos
 

Hey Doc,

Your absolutely right, its the takeover EV that will drive the valuation for now as production is not an option ... yet,

Thus as the last round of takeovers were done at $15lb I was happy to use that, however, I remember that the last U takeover was done at an EV equivalent of $30 lb

I'll try and dig up who it was,

For now thought I'm happy to use the $15 lb EV figure
 
I found my post re the last takeover, was in Uranium raging bull thread,

Take over offer was actually at $35lb not $30lb, but then not sure about cash and other assets so maybe $30 lb was right



Another take over, US $1.75Billion = $2.2 Billion AUD for 61m lb's Uranium = SXR paid $35 AUD for each pound of Uranium!


Uranium just got hotter
Merger capitalizes on a metal that has soared 500% since 2003
ANDY HOFFMAN

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

June 5, 2007 at 4:11 AM EDT

In the rapidly shifting uranium sector, where the price of the metal used to make nuclear fuel has soared more than 500 per cent since 2003, the aggressive deal maker has prospered.

Few have been more willing to pull the trigger on a takeover than Toronto's sxr Uranium One Inc. [SXR-T] , which yesterday unfurled its latest purchase, a $1.75-billion, all-stock offer for Vancouver's Energy Metals Corp. [EMC-T] , which owns a slew of uranium projects in the United States and a processing facility.

If successful, the deal will create an $8.2-billion entity, amalgamating two of the most active players in the industry, which through a series of rapid-fire acquisitions, have each capitalized on the surge of interest in all things radioactive.

"We believe in our product more so than some people who have been in this business for a long time," Neal Froneman, Uranium One's president and chief executive officer, said in an interview.

Energy Metals


SXR Uranium One


A nearly bankrupt South African gold company with no production to speak of three years ago, deal making has vaulted Uranium One to its position as the second largest publicly traded uranium producer, behind industry stalwart Cameco Corp. of Saskatoon.

A $3.8-billion merger with UrAsia Energy Ltd. last year gave Uranium One much-needed production assets in Kazakhstan to complement its Dominion mine in South Africa and Honeymoon project in Australia.

Investment bankers at BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. have guided the company's transformation, facilitating transactions, a Toronto Stock Exchange listing and a move of its headquarters from Johannesburg to Toronto.

Energy Metals or EMC has also been a keen consolidator.

Amid the rocketing price of uranium concentrate, or yellowcake, EMC snapped up several U.S. uranium properties in 2005 and in 2006 pulled off three acquisitions; Standard Uranium, Quincy Energy and High Plains Uranium.

The spot price of uranium has more than doubled over the past year to an all-time high of $138 (U.S.) a pound.

"It's really a race to production," Paul Matysek, EMC's president and CEO, said in an interview.

For Uranium One, EMC offers the potential for a major presence in the United States, where demand for yellowcake from U.S. utilities is about 50 million pounds a year, outstripping the annual domestic production of approximately four million pounds by roughly 11 times. Nuclear-generated electricity has returned to favour amid concerns about emissions from coal-fired plants and worries about dependence on energy from foreign sources.

EMC is developing uranium projects in Texas, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah, among other states, and is expected to begin a modest level of production in Texas next year, followed by a mine startup in Wyoming in 2009 or 2010. The company, which was advised on the deal by GMP Securities LP, has roughly 61 million pounds of measured and indicated resources.
"This transaction results in the creation of a powerhouse in the U.S. uranium sector and goes a long way towards reaching our goal of releasing uranium to U.S. utilities," Mr. Matysek, who will stay with the combined company to lead operations in the Americas, said on a conference call.

Mr. Froneman expects U.S. uranium demand to increase and predicts between six and 10 new reactors will be approved for construction in the next few years.

"I do believe we are seeing a U.S. nuclear renaissance," he said.

The bulk of EMC's assets will use "in-situ recovery" or ISR -- a process that uses ground water to leach uranium from deposits. Uranium One's operations in Kazakhstan also use ISR.

Despite Uranium One's rapid growth, Cameco remains the industry giant, with a market value more than double Uranium One's and 10 times its 2007 production.

Cameco has ignored the flurry of sector takeovers, concentrating instead on its own development projects, including the troubled Cigar Lake mine.

"This transaction results in a larger, higher-growth alternative to Cameco," Mr. Froneman said.

SXR URANIUM ONE:

Close: $16.10, down 53 cents

ENERGY METALS:

Close: $18.44, up 15 cents.

*****

The Deal

sxr Uranium One is offering 1.15 of its shares for each Energy Metals Corp. share or $18.51 based on yesterday's closing price. EMC shareholders will own 21 per cent of the new company.

The Deal Makers: sxr Uranium One

December, 2005: Neal Froneman's Aflese Gold and Uranium Resources completes a reverse takeover of Southern Cross Resources.

July, 2006: Uranium One starts negotiating purchase of U.S. Energy Corp.'s uranium assets.

February, 2007: Announces $3.8-billion stock-swap takeover of uranium producer UrAsia Energy Ltd.

Energy Metals Corp.

December, 2004: TSX Venture-listed Clan Resources Ltd. changes name to Energy Metals Corp.

January-November, 2005: EMC stakes or acquires dozens of U.S. uranium properties in Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota and Oregon.

Nov. 10, 2005: Announces stock deal to buy Standard Uranium Inc., giving it Hobson Plant uranium facility in Texas.

Nov. 16, 2005: Announces all-stock deal for Quincy Energy Corp.

August, 2006: All-stock deal for High Plains Uranium.

The Result

Valued at roughly $8.2-billion, the new company will be the second-largest publicly traded pure-play uranium producer, but still a distant second to Cameco's $19.9-billion market capitalization.
 
Danewbee,

I've seen some of your other posts including inciteful ones. You are attacking his analysis. Where is yours? If you are going to attack his "disorganized analysis" with nothing in reply other than what looks like another bitching session, then I suggest you take up another hobby! Those who know the FWL thread will know what I mean. Yes,sentiment is not in uranium's favour at present, but YT has alerted people to what is an overlooked story with substance. I haven't bought any as yet.
DYOR
 
Hi YT,
thanks for the research.

Do you know when the IPEN testwork was done? am I right in saying it was early 80's ???. I also see that CTS used a independent geologist commissioned to examine this "historical" data and that he found it to be JORC compliable. To me that's a bit thin, I know you've done some research on this. Did you find anything about the company or person (Phil Jones) that compiled the report, such as track record & reliability.

Thanks for your time (this is my own sticking point on CTS hope it doesn,t sound silly)
 

Hi buy,

Not silly at all as this was my main sticking point too,

If you check through the research I put up you'll see this,

1. Both IPEN and IAEA worked on "Chapi"

2. The recent reults that CTS found at Chapi were consistant with what IPEN and IAEA claimed

3. Unlike Oil and Gas which migrates/leaks, Uranium like most other ore types doesn't (unless its close to the surface in which case it may weather away, or leach) so if there's a historical JORC as was the case with MTN's deposit, then its fairly likely that the resource is there

4. Historical IPEN/IAEA reports are being proven accurate by the other Canadian U companies working in the area

5. CTS also now has the Kyrgyz projects


But until drill assays are back from Corachapi we won't know the full extent of the deposit, that would be a definate cause for re-rating imo
 

1. YT, Aussie Dollar is 88c, could be par with US dollar soon;
2. The latest take over with significant size is Areva takeover UraMin, paid about US$10.5/lb. Besides, it is last month. Afterwards, the uranium market has suffered significant correction.
3. You cannot spot the mistake "$500m USD=$625 AUS? 1 AUS is worth $800,000 US? not bad for even a poorest guy in Australia.
4. How can you apply takeover premium to valuate a company without any sign of being taken over? I don't know which school are you graduated, or have different agenda?

Don't want to upset you, as I said agree with most of your staff. Cannot believe there are still some people attack me using FWL example. Why people cannot accept a different view?

Does it hurt FWL, or CUL at all after we settle our difference? NOT AT ALL.

OK, CTS's advantage is high grade (but erratic), and relative easy to mine and extract, could be a producer in a very short period. The EV/lb is not a good valuation method. NPV, or Discount Cash Flow will be more suitable.

I think you get it covered. Just a bit disorganized. It's not easy to read. The $15-30/lb EV staff won't help your valuation, and could be laugh stock. The NPV will justify whatever valuation you have put on.

If you use $15-30/lb EV, you don't need to buy CTS. Just close your eye, pick an uranium stocks on ASX to invest. It is not the right time to use it.
 

Areva's purchase of Uramin hasn't been finalised yet. Therefore, if it does go through, despite this 'Uranium correction', this nullifies your point.
 

Danewbee, EV is a proxy for NPV. The NPV would be difficult to calculate at the moment given insufficient info on the company's plans for production volumes etc. In CTS's case, with production being so close and presumably easy, then the NPV per pound would be higher compared with companies that can only start up later and have higher production costs. This would also indicate that the EV/lb should be higher for CTS than for companies with projects that have a later startup, higher risks and higher production costs per pound.

Having said this though, I have read somewhere that Paladin was currently being priced at $24/lb (dont know if it is true since I'm not planning to invest in uranium in the next few months). Given that PDN is almost at production with minimal risks to achieving production, would $15/lb be fair price for CTS at this stage?
 
danewbee said:
1. YT, Aussie Dollar is 88c, could be par with US dollar soon;
Click to expand...

So your LT USD/AUD would be 1:1

danewbee said:
2. Afterwards, the uranium market has suffered significant correction.
Click to expand...

What significant correction? Spot price dropping from $135/$136 lb to $129/$130 lb, yeah real big correction there

danewbee said:
3. You cannot spot the mistake "$500m USD=$625 AUS? 1 AUS is worth $800,000 US? not bad for even a poorest guy in Australia.
Click to expand...

lol, so I left an 'm' off you get the point, well here's one for you, spot the mistake my perfect friend! :

danewbee said:
Don't want to upset you, as I said agree with most of your staff.
Click to expand...

danewbee said:
4. How can you apply takeover premium to valuate a company without any sign of being taken over? I don't know which school are you graduated, or have different agenda?
Click to expand...

What premium? What are you on about? Agenda? Mate if you read my post correctly, it says if CTS were to get a takeover.

Its funny, I rarley see you post, except after I put out a detailed post, strange isn't it and then your all about picking holes ....

Some of your points are valid, but most are petty nit picking.

Sorry mate, but not really going to take your comments seriously, I detect too much of a personal attack rather than analysis,

Why don't you come up with a valuation, seeing as you sound so highly edumacted and all.

I look forward to reading it.
 
Dear YT

I followed yours and others exchange of opinions. I became brave and put some hard earned $ on CTS today. I am hopeful and thankful for research reports from people like you and others. Ironically we get them free and some do the nit picking. Just ignore them.
Even looking into reports like Huntleys which I pay to get I find the quality of information are rather sketchy compared to some of the analysis I read in ASF.
For example Huntley said Buy SIP at more than $2 just to retract to sell next report, Same was with PSV. I asked the analyst never responded to explain. Why people then whinge against YT or likes.

Keep it up YT and thanks again.

Miner
 
Well somebody clearly has sand in their vagina. Stop the slagging and just focus on CTS... you know who you are!

Now discussing CTS, in the short term today they fell -1.99% which is about the average price fall today for the Uranium Sector, so as a retrace I'd consider it to be non existent as some companies such as AAR and URA went up about 18% on speculation and and an announcement for URA. Today CTS will most likely begin it's climb again however IMO there will most likely be relentless last minute buying on Friday afternoon... There really isn't much else to say seeing as YT wrote a thesis... I hope I don't repeat anything

There is also Speculation that CTS's Peruvian deposits may actually be much larger than anticipated as it is believed that drilling was conducted close to the surface rather than 200 meters deep like MTN. Locals do not approve of Uranium Mining (who really does?) however the Corrupt Government is willing to do anything for money which is possibly what really worries the people most. Peruvians have a High rate of birth defects... fused bones, no limbs etc. Anyway again as stated by everyone CTS is very cheap compared to its peers.

With a current resource/Company value of $5.55 per pound if CTS went up ten fold it would still be cheaper than AGS which from memory was about $60 per pound. If AGS doubled it would be almost enough to buy already mined Uranium.

It just recently broke it's all time high will most likely form a foundation for positive growth in SP...

I'm going to sleep...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

February 2025
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
ducati916
KOB - Koba Resources
Replies
7
Views
3K
noirua
MTH - Mammoth Resources Corp (TSX.V)
Replies
1
Views
3K
Userman
Carmax Mining (CXM.V)
Replies
0
Views
3K
Userman
PM8 - Pensana PLC
2
Replies
23
Views
8K
Balder
B
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...