AMERICAS NEXT URANIUM DEVELOPER Investor Presentation December 2017 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
AMERICAS NEXT URANIUM DEVELOPER Investor Presentation December 2017 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
AMERICAS NEXT URANIUM DEVELOPER Investor Presentation December 2017 TSX: AZZ / FRA: P8AA / OTCMKTS: PWURF DISCLAIMER / SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT Certain statements in this presentation are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking
2
DISCLAIMER / SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT
Certain statements in this presentation are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements consist of statements that are not purely historical, including any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes” or variations (including negative and grammatical variations) of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “should”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause Azarga Uranium Corp.’s (“Azarga” or the "Company”) actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. No assurance can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements will occur or, if they do occur, what benefits the Company will obtain from them. These forward-looking statements reflect management's current views and are based on certain expectations, estimates and assumptions which may prove to be incorrect. Material expectations, estimates and assumptions pertaining to forward looking statements include, but are not limited to: the timing of permits and licenses necessary to project finance and develop the Company’s Dewey Burdock Project, the improvement of uranium markets and uranium pricing, the availability of additional capital to enable the Company to continue as a going concern, including capital that may be generated from the Kyzyl Ompul earn-in agreement and the Company’s mineral properties provide a pipeline for continued growth. A number of risks and uncertainties could cause its actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward looking statements, including, but not limited to: global economic conditions; uranium price fluctuations; government regulation and policy risks; public involvement in the permitting process; Native American involvement in the permitting process; environmental regulatory requirements and risks; the market price of the Company’s shares; public acceptance of nuclear energy and competition from
- ther energy sources; the Company will require significant amounts of additional capital in the future; competition for properties and experienced employees; uranium industry
competition and international trade restrictions; exposure to emerging markets; possible loss of interests in exploration and development properties; mining and mineral exploration is inherently dangerous and subject to factors beyond the Company’s control; the Company’s mineral resources are estimates; the nature of exploration and development projects; political risk; currency fluctuations; the Company has no history of mining operations; property title rights; dependence on key personnel and qualified and experienced employees; delineation of mineral reserves and additional mineral resources; insurance coverage; dilution from further equity financing and outstanding stock
- ptions and share purchase warrants; the Company has never paid dividends and may not do so in the foreseeable future; litigation and other legal proceedings; technical
innovation and obsolescence; disclosure and internal controls; and conflicts of interest. Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that are in many cases beyond the Company’s control. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and the Company’s actual results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and the development of the industry in which it operates, may differ materially from statements made or incorporated by reference in this presentation. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements if management’s beliefs, estimates and opinions or the Company’s circumstances as at the date hereof should
- change. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether, as a result of new information, future events or
- therwise. Additional information about these and other assumptions, risks and uncertainties are set out in the "Risks and Uncertainties" section in the Company's MD&A filed
with Canadian security regulators. Certain technical data in this presentation was taken from the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment Dewey-Burdock Uranium ISR Project, South Dakota, USA” dated 29 January 2015, prepared by Douglass H. Graves of TREC Inc. and Steve E. Cutler of Roughstock Mining Services (the “Technical Report and PEA”) and is subject to the assumptions, qualifications and procedures described therein. The Technical Report and PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would categorize them as Mineral
- Reserves. There is no certainty that the results of the Technical Report and PEA will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability.
- Mr. John Mays, P.E. is the Qualified Person who supervised the preparation of the exploration technical data in this presentation.
This presentation shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities.
3
ARE EXPERIENCED MINE DEVELOPERS BELIEVE IN URANIUM UPSIDE OWN DEWEY BURDOCK, THE HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR URANIUM PROJECT, AMONG PEER GROUP1 HAVE A PIPELINE OF PROJECTS ARE TSX MAIN BOARD LISTED AND POSITIONED TO SUCCEED
WE…
Notes: 1. Various company announcements and research notes; refer to slide 14 for additional details.
4
MINE DEVELOPERS
Richard F. Clement, Jr. Chairman
Professional Geologist with 35-years+ experience in uranium, 11-years with Azarga Uranium Corp.
John Mays Chief Operating Officer
20-years+ experience in design, construction and operation of ISR uranium mines and formerly Chief Engineer, UrAsia Energy
Blake Steele President and Chief Executive Officer
Formerly SouthGobi Resources (Ivanhoe Mines Group) and previously with Deloitte in Audit and Financial Advisory practices
Dan O’Brien Chief Financial Officer
5-years+ experience as CFO for mining companies and previously 10- years with Canadian accounting firm
5
URANIUM UPSIDE
Why Uranium?
§ Supplies reliable base load power, unlike wind or solar § Avoids carbon emissions, unlike coal, oil or natural gas § Provides price stability § Global demand forecasting strong growth2 § 447 nuclear reactors operable in 30 countries world-wide § 57 nuclear reactors under construction § 510 nuclear reactors ordered, planned or proposed
Notes: 1. Nuclear Street – IEA Economist Varro Says Touts Nuclear Power to Control Climate Change. 2. World Nuclear Association – World Nuclear Power Reactors (December 2017).
Climate change initiatives require nuclear energy Meeting carbon emissions goals to thwart climate change would be “very difficult to achieve without an increase in nuclear capacity.” 1 Laszlo Varro - Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency Nuclear energy makes sense
6
§
Global reactor pipeline consists of 1,0141 nuclear reactors compared to 9832 pre-Fukushima
§
216 nuclear reactors under construction, ordered or planned1 representing approximately 48% of current operating fleet
§
China accelerating nuclear growth plans
§
58 GWe of installed capacity forecast by 2020-21, 150 GWe by 20303 (currently 35 Gwe)4
§
6-8 nuclear reactors forecast to be constructed per year, increasing to 10 per year after 20203 (37 reactors currently operable1)
§
India – 22 reactors currently operable, 6 under construction, 65 ordered, planned or proposed1
§
Japanese restarts moving forward – 5 reactors restarted and 21 additional reactors have applied for restarts, of which, 4 are expected to restart in 20185.
§
U.S. continues to heavily rely on nuclear, generates 63% of carbon-free electricity6
§
In 2016, first new U.S. nuclear reactor started in 20+ years
URANIUM UPSIDE
Strong demand growth forecast when supply has been cut back
Notes: 1. World Nuclear Association – World Nuclear Power Reactors (December 2017). 2. Haywood Securities Inc. – Target & Commodity Price Revisions (25 January 2017). 3. World Nuclear Association – Nuclear Power in China (October 2017). 4. The Business Times – China had 20 nuclear reactors under construction at end-March: nuclear association (27 April 2017). 5. World Nuclear Association – Nuclear Power in Japan (December 2017). 6. World Nuclear Association – Nuclear Power in the USA (October 2017) 7. TD Securities Inc. – Equity Research: Metals & Minerals (1 August 2017). 8. Company announcements. 9. Cantor Fitzgerald
URANIUM DEMAND IS GROWING SUPPLY HAS BEEN CUT BACK
§
U3O8 supply has decreased by 5% from 2013 to 20167
§
Mined supply reduced in price downturn – Rabbit Lake, Kayelekera and Honeymoon operations suspended8
§
Cameco: operations at McArthur River and Key Lake to be suspended for 10 months starting January 2018, removes 9% of 2018 forecast uranium production9
§
Kazatomprom: 20% production cut for next three years, approximately 28.6 million pounds of forecast supply9
7
URANIUM UPSIDE
Supply deficit on the horizon1 URANIUM SURPLUS/DEFICIT – Assumes projects with estimated break-even costs of US$70/lb or
higher come into production
URANIUM SURPLUS/DEFICIT – Assumes US$40/lb uranium prices and production shutdowns
based on the estimated expiration of long-term contracts
Notes: 1. Cantor Fitzgerald – Uranium Sector Update: Revising our uranium price deck in the wake of Cameco’s and Kazatomprom’s cuts (18 December 2017).
- 30
- 10
10 30 50 Millions of lbs U3O8
- 30
- 10
10 30 50 Millions of lbs U3O8
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 Historical Spot Price Historical LT Contract Price
8
URANIUM UPSIDE
Analysts’ forecast a recovery in Uranium price
US$/lb
Source: TradeTech for historical spot and LT contract prices. Analysts’ forecast is based on average of 7 analyst forecasts (analysts include: BMO, Cantor Fitzgerald, Credit Suisse, VIII Capital, Haywood, Royal Bank of Canada, and TD Bank).
Analysts’ forecast spot price 29 35 42 Fukushima incident 60 Historical LT contract prices achieve premium to spot prices
20 40 60 80 100 Spot Long-term contract Long-term equilibrium
9
URANIUM UPSIDE
New production requires higher prices
HIGHER PRICES ARE NEEDED1 FUEL CYCLE IS LONG SO MARKETS REACT EARLY
§ Cantor Fitzgerald analysis estimates
long-term all-in sustaining costs of US$80/lb2
US$/lb
Mining / milling UF6 conversion U-235 enrichment Fuel fabrication Fuel loading
12-18 months
Notes 1: TradeTech for Spot and Long-term contract price. 2. Cantor Fitzgerald – Quarterly Commodity Outlook (26 October 2017).
24 31 80
10
DEWEY BURDOCK SOUTH DAKOTA, USA
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
11
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
What is in-situ recovery (ISR) mining?
Source: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (www.nrc.gov).
§ Produces >48% of global uranium1 § Injection wells add oxygen and carbon
dioxide to groundwater creating a lixiviant solution in the layer of earth containing the uranium ore
§ Uranium dissolves into the solution § Recovery wells pump the solution back
to the surface to a processing facility and then returned to injection wells after removal of uranium
§ Monitoring wells are checked regularly to
ensure uranium and lixiviant is not escaping the uranium deposit
Note 1: World Nuclear Association – World Mining Uranium Production (July 2017).
10 20 30 10 20
ISR VS CONVENTIONAL – GRADE AND CASH COST COMPARISON USING CAMECO AS A GUIDE
12
§ Environmental impact
manageable – no waste rock tailings, minimal dust
§ Operate at approximately
two-thirds the cost of conventional mines1
§ Average capital expenditure
- f constructing ISR mine less
than 15% of conventional mine1
§ Only sandstone hosted
deposits with the right hydrological and geological conditions amenable to ISR
§ Provide greater operational
flexibility and ability to adapt to changes in uranium price
McArthur River & Key Lake Cigar Lake Inkai Nebraska & Wyoming Conventional ISR Reserves grade (% U3O8) Cash cost (US$/lb) Ave = 0.1% Ave = 13.8% Ave = US$21/lb Ave = US$19/lb Grades of Athabasca assets average 150x more than ISR… BUT ISR has 10% lower cash cost!
Notes: Data sourced from Dundee’s Cameco research note of 1 June 2016. Cash cost numbers are 2017’F to take into account when assets are in steady state production and based on weighted average of production.
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
Why we like ISR so much?... It’s cheaper and more reliable
Note 1: TradeTech – The Nuclear Review (October 2016).
13
§ Edgemont uranium district in south west
South Dakota, approximately 60 miles from Cameco’s Crow Butte mine in Nebraska
§ Mineral rights and surface rights covering
approximately 17,320 acres and 12,500 acres, respectively
§ Well served for infrastructure
Source: Technical Report and PEA.
Dewey Burdock: Location and infrastructure Sixteen miles from Edgemont, serviced by two lane, all weather gravel road Residential / light use power already at site will supply first two years, then 15 miles of 69kV line to be built to substation to provide upgraded power for central processing plant in third year Two 3,000 foot wells to be drilled on site to pump water from the Madison Formation
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
10 miles
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 5 10 15 20 25 30
§ Measured & Indicated: 8,582,000 lbs at
average grade of 0.25%
§ Inferred: 3,528,000 lbs at average grade
- f 0.05%
14
Source: Technical Report and PEA. Only includes ISR amendable resources. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic
- viability. Effective date of resource estimate – 29 January
2015.
Dewey Burdock: Highest grade among peers
NI 43-101 COMPLIANT RESOURCE
DEWEY BURDOCK2
HIGHEST GRADE AMONG PEERS1
Life of mine project size (lbs) Grade (U3O8%) CENTENNIAL3
Notes: 1. Peers include: Uranium Energy Corp.’s Goliad and Reno Creek, Energy Fuels’ Nichols Ranch and Alta Mesa, UR-Energy’s Lost Creek and Shirley Basin, and Peninsula Energy’s Lance. Peer grade data is sourced from latest NI 43-101 for Measured plus Indicated Resources for all except Lance, where data is published according to the Australian JORC Code for Measured plus Indicated Resources. Life of Mine project size data comes from the latest published life of mine production for each project, with the exception of Uranium Energy Corp.’s Goliad project and Energy Fuel’s Alta Mesa project, which comes from latest NI 43-101 for Measured plus Indicated Resources. 2. Source: Technical Report and PEA; includes some Inferred Resources in
- production. 3. Source: NI 43-101 Preliminary Assessment Powertech Uranium Corp. Centennial Uranium Project
Weld County, Colorado, SRK, 2 June 2010; includes some Inferred Resources in production.
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
15
1.0m lbs Annual U3O8 production 11 years Mine life (incl. two year ramp-up) 9.7m lbs Total LOM production US$27.0m or US$2.80/lb Initial capital expenditure US$12.53/lb US$8.50/lb US$1.25/lb US$2.78/lb Cash operating costs
- Plant and well field operating
- Restoration / de-commissioning
- Site management / overhead
US$284.2m / US$220.9m Free cash flow pre-tax / post-tax US$149.4m / US$113.8m NPV (8% disc) pre-tax / post-tax 67% / 57% IRR pre-tax / post tax
Note: 1. Source: Technical Report and PEA, which is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would categorize them as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the results of the Technical Report and PEA will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
§ Initial capital expenditure of US$27m is
‘sector leading’ for a project of this size
§ Lowest quartile life of mine uranium C1
cash costs
§ US$12.53/lb § Pre-tax IRR of 67% at US$65/lb long-
term uranium price (note: post-Federal tax IRR of 57%)
§ Vanadium has not been incorporated;
however, assays and historical data indicate significant vanadium is present Dewey Burdock: 2015 PEA demonstrating robust economics
ROBUST PROJECT ECONOMICS1
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
US$14.00/lb Sustaining capital costs US$6.33/lb Local taxes and royalties
16
Final Source and Byproduct Materials License
§ Issued April 2014 and in good standing § Remaining contention expected to be resolved in
Q2 2018, pertains to identification and protection of historic and cultural resources
UIC Class III UIC Class V
§ Draft permits issued March 2017 § Public comment period closed June 2017 § Working with EPA to obtain final permits
Ground Water Disposal Plan Water Rights Permit Large Scale Mine Plan Permit
§ Applications complete and recommended for
approval by South Dakota DENR staff
§ South Dakota permit hearings for final approval
commenced in late-2013, continuance ordered until completion of federal regulatory approvals (NRC and EPA) Dewey Burdock: Status of key permits
HIGHEST GRADE UNDEVELOPED ISR PROJECT
17
PIPELINE OF PROJECTS
Summary of projects
USA ASIA
Kyzyl Ompul (Kyrgyz) Dewey Burdock (SD) Centennial (CO) Dewey Terrace (WY) Aladdin (WY) Savageton (WY)
Development projects with NI 43-101 Resources and PEAs
Exploration projects with NI 43-101 Resources Green fields exploration
18
0.7m lbs Annual U3O8 production 9.5m lbs Total LOM production US$71.1m or US$7.5/lb Initial capital expenditure US$34.95/lb Cash operating costs2 US$51.8m Pre-tax NPV (8% discount)3
Notes: 1. Source: NI 43-101 Preliminary Assessment Powertech Uranium Corp. Centennial Uranium Project Weld County, Colorado, SRK, 2 June 2010, which is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would categorize them as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that these results will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 2.Includes US$10.63/lb of satellite/ well-field development costs and $5.59 of local taxes and royalties. 3. At US$65/lb uranium price and including a 20% contingency on costs and capital expenditure.
PIPELINE OF PROJECTS
Centennial: Second project for development
NI 43-101 COMPLIANT RESOURCE
§ Indicated: 10,371,571 lbs at average
grade of 0.09%
§ Inferred: 2,325,514 lbs at average grade
- f 0.09%
Source: NI 43-101 Preliminary Assessment Powertech Uranium Corp. Centennial Uranium Project Weld County, Colorado, SRK, 2 June 2010
PROJECT ECONOMICS1
19
PIPELINE OF PROJECTS
Dewey Terrace: A potential satellite project to Dewey Burdock
SIGNIFICANT URANIUM MINERALIZATION IDENTIFIED
§ Located in Wyoming, adjacent to Dewey Burdock § 259 mineralized drill holes identified § 91 mineralized drill holes with 129 intercepts equal to or exceeding 0.2 GT
cutoff using a 0.02% grade cutoff with average eU308 grade of 0.062% and an average thickness of 7.4 feet
§ Deposition consistent with sand channel systems within Dewey Burdock § Conditions indicate possible in-situ recovery amenability § Several drill holes encountered multiple intercepts demonstrating a vertically
stacked group of separate mineralized zones, similar to Dewey Burdock
§ Uranium mineralization covers seven separate mineralized zones over a trend
- f approximately 2.5 miles
§ NEXT STEPS – continue review of project information for further uranium
mineralization, with objective of identifying a uranium resource
Notes: The Company’s review of the records and information pertaining to the above data reasonably substantiate the validity of this information; however, the Company cannot directly verify the accuracy of the historical data, including the procedures used for sample collection and analysis. Therefore, the Company encourages investors not to place undue weight on these results.
20
Notes: 1. As at 30 September 2017. 2. As at 15 December 2017. 3. Based on 1 CAD = 0.78 USD exchange rate.
POSITIONED TO SUCCEED
Capital structure and Kyrgyz option agreement
KYRGYZ OPTION AGREEMENT
Note: 1. US$150k received to date, remaining US$5.85m expected to be received by July 31, 2020, with monthly payments commencing in Q1 2018, for 100% interest in Kyzyl Ompul. Net smelter royalty of 2% for up to US$5.0m retained for Kyzyl Ompul.
81.4m Shares outstanding1
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
C$0.24/share Share price (TSX: AZZ)2 C$19.5m Market cap (CAD) US$15.2m Market cap (USD)3
SHARE PERFORMANCE
C$/share
Source: TMX Money.
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
US$6.0m Expected cash proceeds from Kyzyl Ompul option agreement1
21
POSITIONED TO SUCCEED
Investment summary
§ Highest grade undeveloped ISR uranium project among peer group2 § Robust economics at low uranium prices; lowest quartile C1 cash costs
DEVELOPMENT ASSETS WITH COMBINED PRE-TAX NPV >US$200m1 CLASS LEADING ‘FLAGSHIP’ DEWEY BURDOCK
§ Two economically assessed development projects, two exploration projects with
established NI 43-101 resources and two green fields exploration projects
PORTFOLIO OF PROJECTS AT VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STAGES
§ Progression of Dewey Burdock permitting § Off-take or sales agreements over future uranium production § Results of geological work on exploration assets § Dewey Burdock moving to the construction phase
VARIETY OF POTENTIAL UPCOMING CATALYSTS
Notes: 1. Sum of pre-tax NPV’s for Dewey Burdock and Centennial. 2. Various company announcements and research notes; refer to slide 14 for additional details.
Corporate office Unit 1, 15782 Marine Drive White Rock, British Columbia Canada V4B 1E6 USA operations Suite #140, 5575 DTC Parkway Greenwood Village, Colorado USA 80111 International operations Level 5-1, Suite 9, Sun’s Group Centre 200 Gloucester Road Wanchai Hong Kong SAR Email: info@azargauranium.com Web: www.azargauranium.com Twitter: @AzargaUranium
22