Next cap raise price? 7c, page-14

I think it’s fine for people to have an agenda, pure or otherwise. But if you’re going to make the bear case for Aura, make the analysis good. My main problem with the posts is that they consistently jump from identifying some issue / potential issue, then leaping to the conclusion “so that’s why it’s worth zero” with no rational path from A to B. Plus there are some statements that are demonstrably wrong. Let’s get specific:

“its low grade radioactive mud” - basically you’re saying it’s not feasible to mine the uranium. Aura is sitting at 155ppm:

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02828289-3A646022&v=fc9bdb61fe50ea61f8225e24ce041a0e155a9400

District Metals has 190ppm:

https://www.mining-technology.com/news/district-control-viken-deposit-sweden/?cf-view

It’s a little higher than Aura but from a feasibility perspective they’re in the same category. Garrett Ainsworth left NextGen and has since spent over 6 years at District Metals:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/garrett-ainsworth-bsc-pgeo-icd-d-8492a918/details/experience/

He’s going to leave NextGen to go exploring completely unviable uranium deposits in Sweden? Maybe but where’s the evidence of that? Just calling something “low grade radioactive mud” doesn’t make it so.

“Before the recent uranium bull market Aura was spruking the tenement as a vandium deposit (or whatever other mineral is in it) without a mention of the U”

Factually incorrect. Here’s the 2017 annual report (well before the bull market):

https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170929/pdf/43mskwtz9pdrz0.pdf

Here’s a quote straight from that report:

“The project whilst important for battery metals remains an important source of uranium for Europe…”

Maybe the de-emphasising of uranium (if indeed that’s the case, I haven’t checked) has something to do with the subsequent mining ban?

“The Fäbodtjärn mine....yes the first mine to open in Sweden in 12 years and how many years of court battles did it take? 13 years and it was Sweden's own Government Agency that was leading the fight against the mine. $25million plus in legal fees spent along the way (only a fraction is recoverable of course).”

I haven’t fact checked this but let’s take everything at face value. Even if the uranium is worth 0 and even if the mine takes over a decade to come online and even if it costs $25 million in legal fees, and even if we take the low end of Aura’s NPV numbers, anyone who has taken an introductory course on valuations can still calculate this is an asset worth more than $100m.

“This is why I say Haggan has no value, it's not economical to mine and even if it was you will need to fight the locals and Government for a decade plus before you can move a single shovel of the radioactive mud”

“A pro-nuclear government may override the local government veto power, but they are not overriding the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in Sweden who makes it their mission to sue any mining company that even thinks about mining in Sweden.”

I’d say there’s more evidence of the pendulum swinging the other way. Liikavaara had its feasibility conducted in 2018:

https://www.boliden.com/globalassets/operations/exploration/mineral-resources-and-mineral-reserves-pdf/resources-and-reserves-aitik-2018-12-31.pdf

It’s now in production:

https://investors.boliden.com/en/press/mineral-resources-and-mineral-reserves-2023-2201539

That’s not rapid by any means but if Haggan were a short term project, that would be reflected in AUD$500m of market cap right now. Of course, it would be far-fetched to say Haggan is right now worth AUD$500m of market cap but it’s equally far-fetched to say it’s worth $0.

The truth is likely somewhere in between and the value is trying to work out where.

To jump in and harp on about Haggan just being a radioactive mud pit worth 0, implying that Garrett Ainsworth is completely wasting his time, that the scoping study is not worth the paper it's written on (it’s a 79 page document that goes into a lot of detail, including +/- accuracy levels), that the Swedish government is just going to trample on any attempts to open mines...that’s a lopsided analysis that blows every negative out of proportion and ignores all the evidence pointing the other way