Australian Uranium News - Research
Published on Wednesday September 14 2011 (AEST)
Companies Mentioned: Bannerman Resources Ltd. BHP Billiton Ltd. Cameco Corp. Extract Resources Ltd. First Uranium Corporation Hathor Exploration Ltd. Kalahari Minerals plc Paladin Energy Ltd. Rio Tinto Uranium One Inc.
The Energy Report: Edward let s quickly sum up 2011 for uranium. Spot prices for yellowcake have fallen from a high of around $74 a pound (lb.) in January to around $51 lb. now. Most of the decline can be attributed to the tsunami in Japan that caused radiation leaks at several reactors there. After the Japanese problems chatter started about substituting thorium for uranium in nuclear reactors. Then negative long term policy decisions started trickling in from Japan Germany Italy and Switzerland. Your long term uranium price of $60 lb. makes you sound less than bullish on the sector. What if anything is going to pick up the uranium sector dust if off and send it upward again?
Edward Sterck: The biggest driver is likely to be the uranium price. I haven t actually changed my uranium price forecast post Fukushima because I had a conservative price estimate previously with a long term price of around $60 lb. in real terms. But in terms of potential positive catalysts the main thing needs to be reinforcement of positive sentiment from China once it announces that its safety review will allow it to continue to license new reactors. I would also like to see some buying picking up in the spot markets from organizations such as China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group and China National Nuclear Corporation. Those are the things that the market needs to see before belief in the uranium space returns to investors minds.
TER: August is typically a slow month for uranium sales but what about September and October?
We usually see volumes pick up in September and October. I think we ll see the same this year as well although a couple of things are overhanging the market at the moment making utility fuel procurement officers a little more cautious on the spot market.
TER: You talked about whether China will license new reactors and move forward with its nuclear program. The country wants to boost power output by 45 gigawatts by 2015. Is there any path to that other than nuclear?
ES: China s main electricity generation focus is still fossil fuels coal fired powered generation but it has a big focus on clean energy as well. Nuclear is likely to be a core part of that strategy as well as renewables simply given the amount of airborne pollutants that the coal fired power generation is pumping out into the atmosphere over China. China s general population in certain areas suffers significant respiratory illnesses related to the pollution problem hence the drive for clean energy.
Nuclear power is likely to remain a core part of China s power strategy going forward. You also get advantages with nuclear power in terms of base load power generation in that unlike in coal you can stockpile uranium to the extent that you can actually cover your fuel demands for several years. It gives an element of energy security that other forms of power generation cannot.
ES: A number of Chinese power state organizations like Hanlong Group are securing strategic resources for China s future. It is certainly possible that we may see further moves in the uranium space.
In terms of investor friendly strategies we could be looking at things that are a little more marginal like Bannerman for example. The Etango Project has scale but it s low grade and doesn t necessarily make economic sense at current uranium prices. However if you are a Chinese power state organization with effectively a 0% cost of capital then the economics of these projects could look considerably different and you ve obviously got a very different investment timeline to your average investor as well. They re looking at this over a 10 20 30 year time span whereas your average investor is looking for a return in a much shorter time period.
Extract s Husab project has probably got a little more appeal due to its larger scale and higher grade versus Bannerman s Etango project. However despite the fact that CGNP s approach for Kalahari failed it is more digestible than Extract and it is possible that Kalahari may be the way to play the M A side of Husab rather than investing in Extract directly.
TER: Kalahari is the majority shareholder at Extract. Is that a potential takeover target?
TER: Bannerman was granted environmental clearance for infrastructure required to service its Etango Uranium Project. Does that make it more of a takeover target?
ES: Any piece of licensing or environmental approval that s secured makes the project more appealing for a potential acquirer.
TER: Do you expect larger uranium companies like Cameco Corp. (CCO:TSX CCJ:NYSE) or BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP:NYSE BHPLF:OTCPK) to acquire smaller uranium explorers or producers while share prices remain in the doldrums?
BHP s uranium commitment is focused on the Olympic Dam expansion. The company s criteria for project development is truly world class in scale.
At the moment there is not really anything of significance out there in the uranium space that seems to be available. There are several world class projects but they are largely tied up. Rio Tinto is possibly a bit more likely to be inquisitive in the space but it s going to be very price dependent. Like BHP it is looking for projects with significant scale and there aren t many at the moment. TER: What leads you to those conclusions?
ES: Rio Tinto s been more actively picking up shareholdings in the uranium space than the other two. Cameco s got a lot of organic growth anyway and until now hasn t been that active in the way of picking up listed uranium companies even with its first mover advantage at the beginning of the 2006 2007 uranium boom. In terms of BHP I m really just looking at the approach the company has embodied in other commodities.
TER: In a recent report you suggested that Cameco is greatly undervalued. You have an Outperform rating on Cameco based largely on its hedging strategy and greater uranium sales in the latter half of 2010. But for a long time Cameco has created some doubts among investors due to the instability of its large uranium projects like Cigar Lake. Has Cameco managed to get things under control in the Athabasca Basin?
With respect to my Outperform recommendation relative to Cameco s own history it does appear somewhat undervalued at the moment. One of the risks to my recommendation is that we could see some erosion of valuation multiples in the market as a result of economic uncertainty combined with a reappraisal of multiples post Fukushima. Of course this would potentially apply to all of the uranium stocks that I cover.
TER: You also said it was based on an increase in forecast prices for the fuel services division. What does that mean?
ES: Long term the cost of fuel conversion services has generally gone up worldwide over the last couple years. That wasn t fully reflected in my forecast so I ve adjusted my forecast to take into account that Cameco cannot effectively charge a higher fee for its fuel conversion services.
ES: I think it is. Uranium One s assets in Kazakhstan are performing extremely well. The structure there is that the mines are operated by subsidiary companies. At most of those operations the staff has a very good understanding of how to undertake in situ leach mining. Uranium One is the only company in the mid cap peer group that has been consistently hitting (a) its guidance and (b) analysts estimates in terms of both production and earnings. I don t see any reason for that to change in the near term.
TER: Uranium One is 51% owned by Russian interests. Is there any danger there?
ES: It does concern some shareholders. Personally I m quite comfortable with it. Any significant transaction between Uranium One and its 51% shareholder Russian state run ARMZ is subject to minority shareholder approval. So there are controls in place.
In terms of risks associated with Uranium One its operations are largely in Kazakhstan. The Russian interest in Uranium One very much reduces the political risks in Kazakhstan. Obviously Kazakhstan is an independent country. It treads its own path. But it was part of the Soviet Union previously. So I think having Russian governance involved with Uranium One probably alleviates some concerns regarding political risks in Kazakhstan.
ES: I think Paladin will actually hit the design capacity production targets at both the Langer Heinrich operation and also at its Kayelekera operation in Malawi. The main problem with the company has been that it has overpromised results to the market and under delivered. It does have the technical ability to follow through on its targets but it is simply likely to take longer to get there than it is telling the market. So at present I don t really see any fundamental problems with the company that would suggest tagging it as an Underperform.
TER: Your target for Paladin was $3.50 in June. It s $3 now.
ES: I revised on the fact that the company is taking longer to get there than expected. And then obviously the outlook for nuclear power or the market s perception of nuclear power and uranium has been somewhat reduced post Fukushima. And I think that the market is applying smaller valuation multiples to the uranium companies than it did previously.
TER: Are there some other uranium names that you follow that you would like to discuss?
ES: I d like to mention First Uranium Corporation (FIU:TSX FUM:JSE) which is now primarily a gold stock despite its name. It has had a pretty troubled history and it definitely represents a higher risk and potentially a higher return investment. The problems that it has encountered have been in relation to its underground operation which has been fairly technically challenged. The company is struggling to get it up to the production rate that will alleviate problems with grade control. If it achieves that production rate it should bring costs down to reasonable levels. It s also had a couple of issues at its Mine Waste Solutions tailings retreatment facility which has encountered some regulatory issues that the company has now overcome.
TER: First Uranium s earnings share are about negative $0.19 a share in 2011 but you project that to go up to positive $0.05 per share in 2012. Is gold strictly to account for that?
ES: It s a combination. The gold price has obviously been very strong but production has improved as well. Mine Waste Solutions is actually cash flow and earnings positive. It s really just the Ezulwini Mine that s dragging earnings at the moment. Come the third and fourth quarter of the coming fiscal year I expect things to be looking better at that operation. As always however First Uranium remains a higher risk investment and there are certainly some refinancing risks associated with some debt that is due in June of 2012.
TER: Do you have any other thoughts on the uranium sector before we let you go?
ES: I m actually feeling slightly more positive than I was pre Fukushima. The rationale is that the main drivers of growth in nuclear power haven t really changed. The countries that were planning to expand their installed nuclear capacity were countries like China and Russia and India. They re not changing their plans materially as a result of the accident that happened in Japan.
On the other hand if you look at the supply side pre Fukushima everyone was trying to put a uranium mine into production given the great excitement about the outlook for nuclear power. My analysis at the time suggested that we were going to have a significant oversupply of uranium. Now that there s greater uncertainty in the outlook for nuclear power in investors minds and we ve obviously got general economic woes in the world that have pushed markets lower and negatively impacted investor sentiment I think that the financing of new production is likely to be more challenging than it was pre Fukushima.
TER: Thank you for your insights.
Courtesy: The Energy Report
