A Company’s Story Must Carry Impingement Value to Obtain Widespread Publicity

In two previous columns, we talked about how quality management attracts Publicity, or PR. Nearly every company is constantly trying to attract the attention of the media. What brings the media to a company’s door? That’s what every public relations man or woman would love to know. For this is what PR people get paid to obtain for their clients.

Quality management is certainly a key motivation in attracting a reporter’s attention. This helps persuade the reporter or a radio/TV producer that the proposed interview isn’t going to be with someone who has “nothing to say” or just rehashing a cliché or tired, old story. The higher the title and the better known a company, the greater the “impingement” a PR pitch (that’s what publicity people use to sell a reporter) impacts upon a member of the media. If someone from the publicity department at Microsoft calls Fortune magazine to ask about profiling Bill Gates, the pitch will have major impingement value. Few names have this kind of clout, either personally or corporately.

In any event, the senior editor of the major magazine will still inquire about the story angle. The editor will want to know, “What are we going to talk about?” Ultimately, it is the outstanding story that sells magazines or newspapers, not just the big name. Not all such stories involve a big name speaking or spouting his thoughts for the day. Often, better stories evolve when there is a strong newsworthy angle. Let’s look at two recent stories – one which involves a uranium company and another one about a coalbed methane (CBM) company, which we’ve covered in this column.

On Thursday, Pacific Asia China Energy (PACE) was featured in the Financing section of Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper. Headlined “High-Energy Performer,” the opening sentences told us why the reporter was interested: “PACE holds contracts to help China explore for and develop its coalbed methane (CBM) resources – fuel China needs to help satisfy its energy demands.”

The big story, which drew the newspaper to Pacific Asia China Energy, was China. PACE piggybacked that story because the company may be helping to offer a legitimate solution to the country’s energy mix. Part of the big story is the possible size of the recoverable gas, estimated in a technical report by Sproule International to be as large as 11.2 trillion cubic feet of gas.

Those two items enhanced the reporter’s interest in PACE. China needs alternative energy sources, such as CBM, to improve their energy mix – from a near total dependence upon coal. And, PACE has a potentially huge resource, which could last a good number of years. Such a gas resource could be sufficiently large to make an impact on China. After all, China has proven reserves of a little more than 30 trillion cubic feet. Another 11 trillion cubic feet, should the potential be proven up, would represent a significant increase of available gas in a very large country. By itself, this could later develop into a major international energy story, reported upon by a great number of news media. Another impingement about the reporter is having the satisfaction of reporting upon a good story, well before others write the story.

Chatter in the newsroom:
“Did you hear about PACE’s gas discovery in China, Bob?”
Bob’s Reply: “Oh that one. Yeah, I wrote about it eight months ago!”

Therefore, there are multiple impingement points in this story. Each “draw,” or a reason to attract eyeballs to the story, is another point the story must score, for the reporter and his editor, to overcome the hurdles of being featured in a major publication. China is a draw. The size of the PACE coalbed methane gas resource is a draw. The potential impact upon China’s energy mix is a draw. Writing about it before the rest of the pack jumps on the bandwagon? That’s a draw, too. In this case, four draws sufficiently attracted media coverage for this small CBM development company.

Sometimes, the timing is just perfect, and the overpowering “big story” accidentally introduces a lucky guy onto the world’s stage. On the same Thursday, the PACE story was carried in the Globe and Mail, the Chief Executive of a tiny Canadian uranium company impinged on a Russian news service reporter in Hong Kong. Such was the good fortune for Craig Lindsay, a Certified Financial Analyst, who has spent more than 16 years in corporate finance, investment banking and business development, according to the website of Magnum Uranium, for which he now serves as Chief Executive.

While Magnum has a market capitalization of about $15 million, and Lindsay is neither a geologist nor engineer, RIA Novosti news agency touted him as a “well-known energy expert.” Admittedly, Lindsay gave a great speech at the Hong Kong Club for foreign correspondents. Cleverly, he announced, “Uranium may be the next oil,” during his speech. As many other industry experts have predicted, Lindsay also forecast uranium “may hit $50/pound by the end of the year.” So many are now announcing this it is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What elevated Lindsay’s publicity was not what he said in his speech. Most of his commentary has been already been reported in numerous publications, including in our columns. (What reporters really hate is rehashing old news to give someone publicity!) It was to whom Lindsay was speaking, and especially the “timing” as to when it was said. Here is how Craig Lindsay got his “15 minutes of fame.”

About six hours earlier, the very same Russian news agency reported that Russia and Kazakhstan had signed a uranium deal worth $1 billion. The photos of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev appeared as the photo op which goes with such really big stories. This was a major event involving two very big names, and among the biggest names and countries in the uranium sector. This was also Russia’s first contract to import uranium; Kazakhstan is the world’s third largest uranium producer. All of this is “big news.”

The clever Russian freelance reporter, who attended the Lindsay speech in Hong Kong, probably text-messaged or emailed his editor by Blackberry, tried to piggyback the Russian-Kazak story with his own story. Yes, that is how timing works. As soon as a major event takes place, other journalists rush to piggyback the event with “their” story. The Russian reporter scored points with his editor and got his story filed (slang for published).

Two cunning gentlemen, the Russian stringer (slang for freelance reporter), and Craig Lindsay (whose name was spelled Kreig Lindsay in the article), both accomplished their purposes. Mr. Lindsay got his company into the world’s spotlight. The Russian stringer got a great story. The reporter threw up a softball question, for which Mr. Lindsay supplied the desired answer.

What was the question the reporter asked Lindsay? That’s pretty obvious from what the reporter published in his article. Here is a clip from the Moscow News article:

Foreign investors are ready to invest in Russia’s uranium industry, if Moscow wants this to happen and establishes a necessary legal base,” Lindsay said. “I believe that Russia is one of the most promising directions for this kind of investments, it is an undeveloped market, full of opportunities. My company will be the first to come to Russia, if the necessary conditions are created,” he added.


Nowhere in Lindsay’s speech did Magnum Uranium’s Chief Executive discuss investing in Russia. However, the reporter NEEDED a good quote. It had to tie-in with “investing in Russia for uranium development.” Lindsay accommodated. He didn’t commit to investing in Russia, but he kept the door open. Magnum Uranium recently announced the acquisition of a 1,080-acre land package in Converse County, Wyoming. The company is also exploring for uranium in both Wyoming and the Athabasca Basin. Its finances are probably already stretched from both exploration and acquisition activities. Magnum’s market capitalization would probably be insufficient to launch investments into Russia, at this time.

However, Lindsay did a great job getting his company this caliber of publicity. And he got the uranium sector excellent publicity. He capitalized upon an impinging story – a story that did show up on the world’s radar – by correctly supplying an answer the Russian journalist was trying to prod out of him.

This is the essence of how journalists and publicity-seekers work together. If the PR person gives the journalist the story angle he is looking for within the bigger story, chances are it will appear in print. Piggybacking a “main event” is the most common way to increase one’s impingement value to a reporter. And by being a cunning interviewee for his Russian reporter, Craig Lindsay just got Magnum Uranium into this column as well!

A 'Call' On The Price of Uranium?

Interviewer:
Before we talk about the potential of uranium shortages and the steep price rise in that energy source, could you explain how you got started with this idea, and what is the philosophy behind Strathmore’s acquisition program of uranium properties?

Dev Randhawa:
Several years ago, Strathmore Minerals started with the idea of acquiring properties “out of the money” at very cheap prices in the belief that the uranium prices would recover so that our assets would be worth more. No one was paying attention to the commodity we chose: uranium. Strathmore Minerals is basically a call on the price of uranium. That’s how we started the company. This strategy is similar to what Lumina Copper (AMEX: LCC) used and what Silver Standard used. For example, the chairman of Silver Standard Resources (NASDAQ: SSRI) is on our board of directors. Our first step was to buy every pound we could for as cheaply as possible. The second step is to buy property that we think we can put into production. We are actively looking for those.

Interviewer:
But uranium has a powerful environmental stigma. Why, then, are you enthusiastic about this type of energy source?

Dev Randhawa:
As with most people, when I began investigating uranium, I thought this was bad stuff. I thought of Three Mile Island and everything else. The more homework I did on this, the more I realized that nuclear power is clean and safe. That is primarily what uranium is used for now. It should be known that no one ever died at Three Mile Island. No one actually died at Chernobyl. Yes, people got sick. Compare that to coal or the oil spills in the fossil fuel sector, and the damage it has done to the environment. The problem is no one is championing nuclear energy. Frankly, the “greenies” have done a great job of burying the story. As I did homework, I found out France relies on nuclear power for about 78 to 80 percent of its electricity needs. I realized that somebody did a great job lobbying and built a very unhealthy picture toward uranium, when really it’s needed. We don’t talk about the cost of coal. We don’t talk about global warming. But, look at what coal has done. Global warming is a function of fossil fuels. That is why you are seeing a growing positive response to nuclear power. For example, one company has applied to put a new nuclear reactor into the US.

Interviewer:
To what do you attribute the recent, steep price rise in uranium?

Dev Randhawa:
Since last year, the price of uranium (U3O8) has climbed back steeply back up. At one point, the price was moving up about $1/pound per month. Uranium’s price is more in line with the price of oil as opposed to other commodities. For a long time, we’ve only produced on the average about 90 million pounds, when we needed 140 (million pounds). There’s been an imbalance for a number of years. This extra came from foreign sources, or from internal US inventories. Since the 1980s, we’ve been using more uranium than we have been producing in the western world. As a result, the extra that we’ve needed has come from Russia, the US government or inventory that utilities had.

Interviewer:
But most investors, let alone the consumer, don’t know that uranium’s spot price has nearly tripled, since bottoming three years ago. Why is that?

Dev Randhawa:
Uranium only makes up one percent of the cost of running a nuclear reactor. The biggest factor in why uranium prices can go up, even more rapidly than gold, is that uranium is insensitive to its use. Uranium prices can go much higher. In casual conversations with a few Toronto analysts, some believe it can go up to $80 or $100/pound. For example, if the price of gold tomorrow went to $800/ounce, it will affect someone’s purchasing decision. The guy might say, “I was going to buy this ring and now it’s up 70 percent because the price of gold is up. Maybe I will buy a silver ring instead.” The same occurs with other commodities. People may change their purchasing decision based on a commodity price doubling.

If the price of uranium went to $44/pound, the average consumer’s electricity bill might go up a few dollars. It is not going to force someone to turn off their power. However, if the price of oil doubled tomorrow, many of us would be driving smaller vehicles. It would make a fundamental difference in how we behave. That’s not going to happen with the price of uranium. It’s like buying pencils for your office. It’s not going to change the way you do business. Even if no nuclear reactors come onboard for the next few years, the ones already there will need the pounds (of uranium). We have a shortage coming up.

Interviewer:
Why do you believe a uranium shortage is in the cards?

Dev Randhawa:
Bottom line is: the nuclear reactors are going to run out of fuel. You have to know that permitting takes a long time in the uranium industry. It’s not like finding a gold property tomorrow and maybe two years from now you are pouring gold. Typically, the permit takes at least three years out. Because nuclear reactors need it, that’s what is causing the price rise. Demand has kept going higher, but production has fallen off the chart. In this industry there are only about half a dozen companies exploring for uranium. At one time, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were almost 150 uranium companies. There hasn’t been any underground mining since the early 1990s. And that doesn’t even include a wild card: there has been talk that by 2020, 90 percent of the nuclear reactors coming onboard will be for China.

Interviewer:
And what would reverse uranium’s steep price rise?

Dev Randhawa:
The only thing that could kill this market would be if Russia discovered it had a lot more pounds to sell. Or the US government, through USEG, came up with more pounds. When we first entered the market, eight years ago uranium rose to around $17-$18/pound. Then it fell. What happened was the U.S. government sold their uranium to a private group, who turned around and dumped it into the market, from then until last year. In October of last year, the Russians were also dumping uranium onto the market for their hard cash.

Interviewer:
If replacement value for uranium comes in the form of exploration costs to find and mine this energy source, what would that cost be?

Dev Randhawa:
Realistically, it would be $20 to $22/pound. I know some are going to say they can do it for less. By the time you take your exploration costs, development costs, and so on, you really need to get $22 to $25 for most properties to go into production and still make money. That’s why most of what you see in the market are ISL (in situ leach) projects. On one property we discovered, it would cost between $16 and $17/ pound to pull it out of the ground. But on others, it might take $20 - 22/pound to pull it out of the ground, after labor costs and sell it on a forward contract. Canada is producing the most uranium because of the grades. Some say Canada has the lowest cost, but that’s not quite accurate. What they mean to say is that the cash costs are the lowest. People forget that it costs up to $2 billion to put some of these into production. Cameco (NYSE: CCJ) was a creature of the government at one time. They were treated that way.

Interviewer:
Earlier you noted that investing in Strathmore Minerals was “basically a call on the price of uranium.” Can you clarify what you meant by that?

Dev Randhawa:
As uranium prices, the share price of Strathmore Minerals should rise. If you look at Bema (Amex:BGO), when gold prices were at $265/ounce, what was it worth? As the price of gold moved up, it had value. Has it gone into production yet? No. Silver Standard (NASDAQ:SSRI) is similar, but it has had to tell its story because people are so focused on gold. The key for investors is not to go where the crowds go, but to go where you can find value. If you believe that nuclear power is the place to be, and the shortage is real, you have got to own uranium stocks.

Interviewer:
What sets Strathmore Minerals apart from any other exploration companies in this sector?

Dev Randhawa:
I challenge any junior exploration company to show an individual who has actually put an ISL (in situ leach) uranium mine into production, including Cameco. They just aren’t around because the industry has been dead since the early 1980s. There aren’t many experts left in this business. The last standing geologist, which Cogema had, was David Miller, who is now working with Strathmore Minerals, as our head consultant. He is the one who has put the Strathmore strategy together. We’ve been looking in southern and eastern Africa. Strathmore is going wherever there are pounds that others have overlooked. Our competitive edge is a database we acquired from Kerr McGee (NYSE: KMD), which used to be number one in the uranium industry. Recently, we announced properties in Wyoming that could be satellite ISLs. We have enough pounds there that we could throw one of them into production. But we still need higher prices. We are still in the acquisition stage.

Strathmore is going to be very aggressive in picking up properties that we think have pounds in the ground or smaller properties that we think can be ISL-able in the US. Everything we’re looking at in the US is for ISL. In Canada, we have over 700,000 hectares in the Athabascan region. That’s a major asset for us. It’s one of the richest areas in the world for uranium. Some of our targets are near existing mines. In Quebec, we’ve got a large property that was drilled by Uranerz. Robert Quartermain has certainly been a part of that strategy. That’s what he did with Silver Standard, and that’s what we’re doing here. We are aggressively going after properties. When sophisticated investors meet our team, they see the story we’ve got and they see our management. You’ll see why we were able to millions of dollars in financings. Our strategy has been to buy the has-been properties, the low fruit in all the trees. And that’s what we’ve been doing.

*****************************************
Devinder Randhawa

Mr. Randhawa founded Strathmore Minerals Corp. in 1996 and is currently the Company's CEO. Mr. Randhawa also founded and is currently the President of RD Capital Inc., a privately held consulting firm providing venture capital and corporate finance services to emerging companies in the resources and non-resource sectors both in Canada and the US. Prior to founding RD Capital Inc., Mr. Randhawa was in the brokerage industry for 6 years as an investment advisor and corporate finance analyst. Mr. Randhawa was formerly the President of Lariat Capital Inc. which merged with Medicure in November 1999 and the was the founder and former President and CEO of Royal County Minerals Corp. which was taken over by Canadian Gold Hunter (formerly International Curator) in July 2003. Mr. Randhawa also founded Predator Capital Inc., which became Predator Exploration. Mr. Randhawa received a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration with Honors from Trinity Western College of Langley, British Columbia in 1983 and received his Masters in Business Administration from the University of British Columbia in 1985.

9 Survival Tips for the Market Shakeout Blues

Investors who bought during the top of the frothy commodities rally are now panicking or kicking themselves. Neither activity helps an investor or trader think straight. Below are a few tips in dealing with the current market shakeout.

1. If you believe you invested in the right stock(s), then turn off your computer and do something enjoyable. Exercise is a great stress reliever. The market has already begun its shakeout. If you didn’t get stopped out, or failed to place earlier stops, your best opportunity lays ahead in picking up additional shares at a much lower price. Most of the experts we’ve interviewed tell us the next rally should start sometime between late July and Labor Day. In an attempt to interview the uranium guru James Dines in late May, we were told, “Call back in a couple of months.” That was a helpful clue that the markets were less than exciting. Mr. Dines is often eager to be interviewed, but recently he was not.

2. Do you believe the fundamentals which engendered the commodities boom have changed? If they haven’t, then the bullishness is only taking a breather. We don’t see any fundamental change in the markets. Russia still wants nuclear power, and its oil production may be peaking. China hasn’t announced the end of its nuclear expansion program. India wants to spend $40 billion on new nuclear reactors. If you are invested in uranium stocks, spot uranium jumped another dollar to $45/pound this past week. Hardly the end of the bull market.

3. If you worry about your investment in one stock or another, then stop watching the ticker and focus on the company fundamentals. Is the story still true or has it changed? See #7 A, B and C below.

4. There’s an old cliché that the time to buy is when you feel like dumping everything you own in the category. At the exact moment you want to sell your entire portfolio of uranium stocks, it may be wiser to add to your holdings. This applies mainly to the retail investor. Most of the professionals did dump at the top and are now slowly accumulating the shares of the naïve who waited until the washout to start selling off.

5. Has a major, earth-shattering event occurred? The last bull cycle in uranium ended with Three Mile Island (TMI). The last decent rally in the precious metals markets fell off a cliff after it was discovered Bre-X Minerals had perpetrated a fraud about its gold ‘discovery’ in Indonesia. Something significant and newsworthy always transpires, and it is also far-reaching. That is the trigger. As with TMI and Bre-X, those were the first shots which launched a later chain reaction to end those bull markets.

6. Before pulling the sell trigger, ask yourself: Do I really want to give up these shares to a bargain basement hunter, who will make a killing on my losses?

7. Since most of you will still panic, please review the following basics for any of the uranium companies you’ve read about:

A) How much cash does the company have in the bank? During shakeouts, cash is king. Prescient companies, which completed their financings during the recent and robust rally, are sitting pretty. They can weather the short-term storm and are well-oiled to move forward when this correction bottoms and reverses. Those companies are the strongest ones to check out when this correction looks gloomiest.

B) Has the management remained the same? Unless the top financial and/or technical people blew out the door, in recent weeks, the story probably hasn’t changed much. Companies which built a strong technical team are resilient and powerful. They will move forward.

C) Have the properties come up dry? One of the reasons you invested in a uranium company was because it announced it had “pounds in the ground.” Some companies have more than others. Some went to the expense and trouble of completing a National Instrument 43-101, which independently confirmed the quantity and quality of the uranium resource. If that changed – and the company announced, “Sorry, nothing there after all,” or announced, “Hey, we were kidding,” that’s one thing. If you haven’t heard that, or read a news release announcing that, then the uranium didn’t walk away or move onto a competitor’s property. It’s still there.

Next time, when the markets are racing higher, and you feel like you won the lottery, consider this bit of biblical advice. The old joke goes, “When did Noah build his ark?” The answer of course is: Before it began to rain.