I agree with Tuatara, yield is only significant in that it...

I agree with Tuatara, yield is only significant in that it improves the economics. If they found 1billion lbs of uranium at 100% on the moon I wouldnt get excited. I am a bit suspicious of the costs charged or quoted for AGS share, over $40. I dont know enough but Heathgate could be doing all right out of the toll. In which case why spend big bucks on buying ace when they are getting 75% of production, and a good chunk of the 25% they dont own back in the toll charge. Posters are saying or implying Heathgate will happily pay $500m, what rate of return would they find satisfactory? 10%?, $50m. I would say they would want more than that. Say they boost production to 8m lb in the next 5 years. Ags share is 2mlb the uranium price is $70 and the toll is now $50. $20 profit a lb, 20x2 is $40m. Some body got better math examples?
Its a good resource but I think its a mistake to attribute a lot of value to the size, business cant look way ahead and pay to have a massive resource still to mine in 20 years. Shareholders arent to interested that far in the future, technology might change etc.. Yield is important but it doesnt seem to be reflected in the profits in this case.
If you believe in uranium, AGS jumps you take the money and invest in another uranium miner that is undervalued. There must be a few out there with good stories, may be diversify a little. Arbitrage, or something.