Why I Believe Sweden Will Pay

First of all, while I have studied International Law, what follows is strictly my opinion and considering the extremely high risk reward nature of this investment, it is neither legal or financial advice. It is simply how Aura could go about this case from one person's point of view.

The first question that needs answering is whether Aura has a strong case? I believe it has. From what I've read, Aura was granted the license to mine uranium in Haagan in 2007. In 2018, Sweden most unexpectedly for those who invested in this company, banned uranium mining. Sweden didn't alter the goalposts; they banned the entire game. From 2007 until 2108 Aura has been said to have spent AUD$30 million in developing the Haagan uranium project.

This should be Aura's minimum asking price in any amicable settlement: AUD$30 million.

It's a win/win outcome, whereby Aura can use the monies to further develop the Tirius project from a position of strength.

The second question is what if Sweden take the matter to an international court? This would be a mistake in my opinion.

We have been informed that Haagan is the 2nd largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the world. Through leeching, we have also been informed it can be dug up at an efficient price in the event of higher uranium prices.

The judges will need to make an evaluation of Haagan. This is the tricky part. In Khan, the judges rejected both Khan's and Mongolia's valuation formulas. As I understand it, they based their USD80million payout based on offers to buy the company. There has been no such offer to my knowledge with Haagan, although there was some interest from a large French uranium company in around 2012 for some kind of deal that did not come to fruition.

So, how can the judges reach a value when they can't use their own precedent?

Sceptics argue Haagan is worthless because of the ban and they are probably right, but that very ban is the reason for the court case so this argument is also worthless.

Other critics point out that because of the low spot price, Haagan is not economically feasible, and that also is right - at this point in time.

Equally, however, Aura bulls could argue there is a uranium bull run coming, and remembering that this case will take 1-5 years, so imagine the valuation of the project if uranium were to hit $100 again in 2 years when this case comes to court? Uranium is a small cost for nuclear energy producers, so price hikes are not such a big deal as with oil.

Therefore, Sweden would be taking a huge risk in letting this case drag on into a uranium bull run where Aura's claim will extend well beyond damages and go into profits.

The last question is how can a minnow like Aura with a half full piggy bank take on Sweden in a court case? I note the legal fees in the Khan case were USD$9 million.

It is a good question but one that is easily answered if Peter Reeve were to shop around and find an astute business skilled lawyer. Such a lawyer, sensing a strong case for victory, can go for a much bigger slice of the pie by offering their services for free in return for a sizeable portion of the court's award; 30% should do the job.

While it sounds like a big amount to give a lawyer, from Aura's perspective it is a very viable risk free option that does not dilute holders.

Again all imo & please DYOR; for this is about as hot as it gets.

Gltah