RE:RE:RE:Dev's BNN Interview now linked from CEO BlogLurk & Learns:
If we can root through the "noise", (if we cannot bring ourselves to put the naysayers on ignore), we would have discovered the following gems posted here:
1. Rick Rule on Market Call Tonight
2. Dev's post merger interview on BNN with Mark Bunting
3. Dev's interview on BNN with Catherine Murray
If I do have a comment, is bearing in mind that he does have a time constraint, Dev should simplify/explain the "court ruling". Mark Bunting got him to explain it on the merger announcement interview. Meaning, Dev knows it like second nature; but the ESL's (same for me using ESL) have no clue. Point being, listeners have a short attention span and if they are quizzical (in a quandry) about a "court ruling" their ability to concentrate (absorb) anything said subsequently is significantly diminished.
The other instance, Dev in explaining the synergies to Catherine Murray, missed an opportunity to "promote" the main reason for the merger was the protection of "Triple R". And speaking about "Triple R", he could have added the shallow, open pittable, basement hosted, technically benign advantage(s) compared to Cameco's big mines in his pre-amble.
As we get closer to the DDD, we are seeing (and Dev to his credit did mention to CM) the Chindia factor being to be the focus for improved market sentiment on U going foward. Eighteen months being bandied about as a practical time horizon.
To add to Mesa1's list of Denison's positive attributes, I do like Dev's mention of the 60 years of experience that Denison in present, predecessor and defunct form can bring to the table. We won't find a line item for cranial in a balance sheet.
Neither will we find the PRESENT experience that a Denison subsiduary (I posted this sometime ago) has in building and maintaining (in perpetuity) massive containment and environmental monitoring systems, and not to mention some backpocket pounds that could become economic is a significantly undersupplied market. Dev mentioned RH as a director and his potential to advance the merged entity. The aforementioned is the kind of contribution that he can make by bringing to the attention of the new board.
When we talk about milling, it is preferable to bring in the contribution of those who have already experienced what works and what don't. So instead of getting told what the mill is going to look like, the consultant is told what the mill is going to look like,,, based of the experience of those who have gone through the experience/ learning curve of SAG mills, wet & dry, back end, TMA's, regulatory, monitoring.
So for those DML haters, let's not even mention LL's access to capital for taking Triple R to production, I would question how much of their venom is based on factual info or just selfish attempts to shake the weak hands? What is stopping those who actually own the stock from selling and moving on? They are certainly relentless. Anyway, they must have their reasons, if they want FCU shareholders to sell that badly. From someone that have had share go off the market before, at the very least the DML "proposed merger" (not a sale),,,has kept FCU from the hands of the purloiners.
BWDIK? Get the facts before voting, as final vote will have the force of institutions, sophisticated investors and long term investors having access to information some will never see.
DYODD - GLAP
Cheers
Stanley