Fission Uranium Corp T.FCU

The Countdown - Executive Summary aka Lay of the Land:

[stanley]

Lurk & Learns - you may want to grab a Java for this one......These is one scenario where a NO vote is acceptable. If this situation does not materialize then we're back to a vulnerable position until the October 14th vote. Not be confused with the Oct 19th vote; which could impact any background deal presently in the works... or not.

Days Between Dates Calculator

1. Between Today and October 14th - gives us 40+ days b4 d vote.

2. Vote Options are NO or YES (note there is no and/or between the NO and YES options). Now Quakes just went through the scenario; but alas it still has not sunken in that, "we cannot have our cake and eat it too".

The way that the PROPOSED merger was set up, contingencies were made for a NO vote. i.e. a NO vote would be more than worth the $14 mln break fee, if a proposal that meets with Dev's assessment of what is a fair and equitable offer for all FCU shareholders.

e.g. Some have SPECULATED that making deals in/with an ESL will take time wrt distance, language, bureaucracy, etc they seek clarification on a plethora of clauses & definitions, including what the definition of "is" is.

Thus my SPECULATION of TIME & WHIPSAW. If the FCU/DML proposed merger is designed to let buy FCU some time to take a possible deal to completion without to complication of having to deal with a rival bid. In this case the $14 mln break fee would be paid to DML for their, "pain & suffering" (wrt the torque lost on their PPS?).

Should a deal with an ESL be the real reason/basis for the proposed merger, then when complete the trading is halted, an announcement is made wart PPS offered then the trading price SHOULD jump up to reflect the cumulative value of the offer. This gap is referred to a whipsaw, as the shock to the market leaves those at the sidelines and any brave shorts scrambling.

At this juncture, we can only assume that offers nowhere close to his $3.00+ were forthcoming; with the only thing forthcoming was some serious headwinds that if left unaddressed w/could see FCU going for the 20day MA plus maybe a 30% premium.

What the proposed merger was intended to do was to thwart the "stink bidders" hoping to capitalize on FCU's precarious vulnerability exacerbated by a commodities correction in China resulting in a selloff in the materials & oil markets that did not discriminate between commodity classes.

This dark cloud has also inadvertently affected the Uranium market in general and FCU in particular; despite a positive outlook for nuclear energy going forward (say 0+ 5 years).

Also affecting the market is a supply overhang attributable to HEU and underfeeding (impact of say 0 + 2 years).

Based on my own first hand experience, in the present market CCO and other well entrenched & established producers are (well? Aussie defections) positioned to supply below their AISC hoping to retain market share with the hopes of sunken cost recovery (including a $3 bln incursion), not unlike some FCU shareholders who may have "invested" on a track record only to find out that the market for juniors regardless of "best in class" status is subject to the vagaries of market calls and the whole spectra of reasons for keeping the PPS below $1.00. Then once a deal is announced we can assume that this contrived condition (aka reduced torque) will be obviated and should a deal be consummated then a roll back (aka share consolidation) normal the kiss of death for a stock will be returned to a PPS that attracts a more sophisticated class of investor.

Thus Stanley says vote NO is an offer deserving of the $14 break fee emerges b4 October 14th.

3. Thus ONLY if conditions favoring the NO vote as detailed above have not been met then we have conditions that favour the YES vote with the following caveats:

a. A NO vote without a compelling offer puts FCU back into harm's way. i.e. a previous situation where it was vulnerable to a hostile low ball offer. (read and understand this point at least line ten times as the naysayers apparently cannot get this). Stated alternatively; if FCU does not have an offer (for the arguably the best AISC champion deposit & C1 exploration team on the planet) then LL's offer to take the merged company to production is a very compelling alternative. Again Lurk & Learns have to weigh the SPECULATION of a faceless blog with unknown ulterior motives (bash and buying among them?) versus an entity with a proven track record of taking a play with huge upside/promise to a successful completion.

b. FCU was extremely vulnerable in a market responding to an unprecedented confluence of "black swan" and other shakeout level events. What did those two negotiators see in China? Did FCU's proposed merger do anything to counter any of the aforementioned market mashers?

c. Positive signs are emerging that FCU will need more time to complete the summer drilling, publish a PEA under the auspices of RPA. One that includes references a NI 43-101 CIMM compliant report on the Dominion Diamond website detailing Diavik operations being successfully managed by 60% owned mining behemoth, Rio Tinto.

Increased resources will not hurt either camp (NO/YES); but it does favour the yes camp if funding streaming (see FN & LL history) is based on a full bankable feasibility in a positive gold BP environment.

d. Denison was the go to name for protection (aka $ 14 mln break fee). Anyone else that could be of any help would want to buy FCU @ $0.00001 per share if they can get away with it. IMHO this the objective of the (paid?) naysayers. For those that believe in conspiracy theories, toriddog alerted us to the selling that follows any positive news. Other events involve a barrage of (organized?) insults designed to get the weak to shift their position to that of potentially stranded; but with torque....a traders mantra. BWDIK?

e. Potentially hostile companies (for the next 0 + 5+ years) need to secure their LONG TERM supply minimizing their AISC. Suggesting a direct (up to 49%) interest unless FCU can convince FIRA that they cannot find a suitable JV partner (Paladin precedent).

f. Present SPOT price is well below the consensus estimate for LONG term spot and contract pricing.

SUMMARY:

If the an offer subject to terms and conditions that would permit a NO vote (c/w the $14 break fee), you can be assured that Dev would take this to the board for approval in a heartbeat.
The point being missed (either inadvertently or deliberately) IMHO is the declared NO voters not fully comprehending the benefit being provided by the proposed merger and post merger should we get to that. My point is .... if a favorable offer not deserving of a NO vote emerges then FCU will still need protection from a low ball (aka HOSTILE) offer.

In a post merger world, Denison Energy (DNN) will still be subject to offers from those entities that need to secure uranium for their LONG TERM requirements. Yes there is a market overhang (supply surplus expected/projected to last ~ 2 years).

Once the overhang is cleared up and assuming that Denison Energy (trading above $1.00 after a 2 for 1) is a reality, its positioning as a second choice to CCO for institutions looking to rotate & diversify their LONG TERM energy holdings away from a T1 to a T2 with the best potential to dethrone CCO from their go to status will be potential upside. The astute (not interested in a nuisance 30% capital gain) will key in LONG TERM weighted average AISC's like many of the "best in class" who have gone b4 them. Recall the differentials postulated on OP vs frozen UG non basement entombment?

I'm sure that every FCU long standing & suffering shareholder would love to have a shock & awe scenario where Dev by agreening to a plan of arrangement with an ESL would gladly vote NO. Under a normal market, why we'll even settle for the market that Hathor had; but reality checks might dictate otherwise.

Lurk & Learns should study the motivations of declared NO voters in the absence of an offer that does not rise to the level/status of "deserving of paying the break fee" as a NO vote in the absence of an offer deserving of paying the $14 mln break fee would see FCU reverting back to the vulnerable position b4 the proposed merger was announced. In which case someone promoting a NO vote could be accused of wishing/hoping/promoting that FCU be susceptible to a low ball/hostile bid of up to and including $0.00001

BWDIK? Do the naysayers on this board appeared to be well funded? Or do they have a hate on for the best uranium project on the planet? i.e. enough to bombard this board with misinformation, outright lies, slander, libel, apparent bash & buys, etc, etc....does their risk of banishment and/or litigation suggest the potential value of the ultimate prize?

DYODD _ GLAP
Cheers
Stanley