Boss Energy

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

Boss Energy is a small-cap Australian uranium producer whose entire investment case rests on one asset working: the Honeymoon in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium mine in South Australia's Frome Basin, ~80km northwest of Broken Hill. It is a pure-play on the price of U3O8 (yellowcake) — no diversification into enrichment, conversion, or nuclear services (contrast Cameco/Westinghouse or Centrus).

How it makes money (the model in plain terms): Honeymoon is an ISR operation — instead of digging ore, Boss injects an acidic lixiviant into the ore body through wellfields, dissolves the uranium in place, pumps the pregnant solution to surface, strips it onto ion-exchange (IX) resin, and drums the recovered U3O8. ISR is low-capex/low-footprint versus conventional mining when the geology cooperates — and the central drama of this company (Lens 5, 12, 13) is that Honeymoon's geology did not cooperate as the feasibility study assumed.

Assets:

• Honeymoon (100%) — restarted late 2023 after a ~decade of care-and-maintenance; commercial production declared 1 Jan 2025. Original nameplate 2.45 Mlbpa U3O8; JORC reserve at the Restart Area ~36 Mlb → a stated "10-plus year mine life". This nameplate is now withdrawn — see Lens 5.
• Alta Mesa (30%) — a South Texas ISR project; enCore Energy (Nasdaq/TSXV) operates with 70%. Boss paid US$60m cash + US$10m in enCore equity for the stake. Ramping toward 1.5 Mlbpa steady-state (Boss's attributable share ~30%).
• Satellite growth — Gould's Dam (~25 Mlb) and Jason (~11 Mlb) deposits, intended to lift Honeymoon output above 3 Mlbpa. Now moot pending the feasibility reset.

Customers / contract structure: Utilities buy uranium mostly on long-term contracts; Boss has deliberately under-contracted — as of the restart-era disclosures only ~16% of Honeymoon's production was committed under long-term deals, to keep spot upside. Known contracts: a 1 Mlb offtake to an unnamed US utility over 7 years (2025–2031) on market-related pricing with a floor/ceiling above Honeymoon's forecast cost; plus ~1.8 Mlb of binding sales to two Western utilities scheduled for 2032. Note the tension: the floor/ceiling was struck against a cost base (US$25.62/lb LOM AISC in the old EFS) that the company has since admitted is wrong (Lens 5). Boss also bought uranium inventory (initial tranche at ~US$30.15/lb) and has been selling purchased pounds to generate revenue while directing produced pounds to inventory.

Bottom line for Lens 1: this is not a diversified miner; it is a single-mine ISR startup that IPO'd its restart into a hot uranium tape, then discovered its orebody model was optimistic. Everything downstream flows from that.

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

ISR uranium has an unusually short physical chain, but the input-sensitivity is the whole story here.

Upstream inputs → Boss → end customer:

• Reagents (the choke on economics): sulphuric acid (lixiviant) and ion-exchange resin are the consumable heart of ISR. Boss explicitly blamed "an expected decline in average tenor and an optimised lixiviant chemistry" for its FY26 cost blowout — i.e. it must pump more acid through lower-grade solution to recover the same pound. Acid and resin are commodity inputs but their consumption intensity is set by geology, which turned against them.
• Wellfield drilling & construction: the binding constraint. The review found Boss needs more, smaller wellfields than the 2020/21 study assumed (less continuity of mineralised horizons) — each wellfield is capex + time, so this is a structural cost and schedule input, not a one-off.
• Processing: IX plant (NIMCIX columns 1–3, commissioned through early 2025) → elution → precipitation → drying → drumming to U3O8.
• The company itself: Boss (Honeymoon 100%; Alta Mesa 30% via enCore as operator).
• Logistics: heavy/unexpected rainfall damaged already-degraded access roads, forcing a further FY26 cut (1.6 → 1.40–1.45 Mlb) — a reminder that a remote SA site has real physical-logistics fragility.
• End customers: Western nuclear utilities (US + Europe named as counterparties), plus the spot market for uncommitted pounds.

Chokepoints / single-source dependencies:

1. The Honeymoon orebody itself is the single point of failure — one deposit, one processing plant, one geology model. There is no second producing Australian mine to average against.
2. enCore as Alta Mesa operator — Boss is a 30% non-operator; it does not control the one asset that is currently ramping well. enCore has had its own disclosure/restatement issues (it was itself a short target in 2024–25), so the "diversification" leg carries operator risk.
3. Reagent-to-recovery ratio — not a supplier concentration problem but an intensity problem: the chain works only at the acid/resin consumption the feasibility study modelled, and that model was withdrawn.

Names or it didn't happen: enCore Energy (Alta Mesa operator, 70%); Boss Energy (Honeymoon 100%, Alta Mesa 30%); utility counterparties are unnamed in disclosures ("major US publicly-listed power utility"; "two Western utilities") — a transparency gap worth flagging.

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

Honest answer: the moat is thin, and the last 18 months proved it.

• Cost-curve position — the supposed moat, now impaired. The old EFS pitched Honeymoon as a low-cost ISR producer (LOM AISC ~US$25.62/lb). That was the moat. The FY26 AISC guide of A$64–70/lb (US$41–45/lb) and the withdrawal of the study means Boss is now, on its own numbers, a mid-cost producer at best — no structural cost advantage over Paladin (Langer Heinrich) or the US ISR names. A cost moat you have to withdraw was never a moat.
• Jurisdiction / permitting (real, durable): Honeymoon is a permitted, licensed, producing uranium mine in a tier-1 jurisdiction (South Australia) — genuinely scarce. Uranium permitting takes a decade; an operating licence is a moat against new entrants even if not against incumbents. Same logic gives Alta Mesa value (US-licensed ISR is strategically prized amid Russia/Kazakh supply anxiety).
• ISR know-how: modest. ISR is a known technology; Boss's specific failure (mis-modelling continuity/leachability) is evidence of below-peer subsurface execution, not a knowledge edge.
• Bargaining power over customers/suppliers: weak on both sides. As a small producer it is a price-taker on U3O8 (utilities and the spot market set price) and a price-taker on acid/resin. Its one lever — under-contracting to keep spot upside — is a bet, not bargaining power, and it cuts both ways when production disappoints.
• Balance-sheet moat (the one real edge): no debt, A$224m cash & liquid assets, and 1.41 Mlb of uranium inventory (~A$117m+ carried). In a sector where developers routinely dilute, Boss can self-fund the feasibility reset and a slower wellfield build without a raise. That is the strongest card in the deck.

Verdict on moats: one durable moat (a permitted, funded, producing licence in a tier-1 jurisdiction) sitting on top of a broken cost moat. The market is no longer paying for a low-cost producer; it is paying for optionality on the study fixing the economics.

Lens 4 · Segments

No segment/geography P&L is disclosed at the granularity the operating battery wants (segments.csv empty; no `` split available). What is sourceable:

Geography: two nodes — South Australia (Honeymoon) and South Texas (Alta Mesa). No further geographic revenue split disclosed.

Trend + cause: revenue grew (TTM revenue A$109.6m, +129% ) but the quality of it is poor — much of it is inventory-trading margin on purchased uranium, and the company still posted a net loss (−A$32.6m TTM; EPS −A$0.08). The segment that matters (Honeymoon owned production) is the one that is decelerating vs. its own plan — the single most important trend in the file. Alta Mesa is accelerating but is only 30%-owned and non-operated.

---

Phase B — Measure performance

Lens 5 · Earnings Result (the crux)

This is where the thesis lives. Boss's FY25 (year to 30 June 2025) print looked fine; the guidance and disclosures around it were the disaster.

FY25 actuals:

• Honeymoon production 872,607 lb — beat its own 850klb guidance.
• Q4 FY25: 349,188 lb drummed (+18% q/q); IX production 396,346 lb (+60% q/q).
• Alta Mesa attributable ~108klb FY25.
• C1 cost Q4 A$36/lb (US$23/lb) — at the bottom of 2H25 guidance. On the surface, operationally competent.
• Balance sheet: A$224m cash & liquid assets (A$37m cash on hand + liquid investments), 1.41 Mlb uranium inventory, no debt.
• Revenue ~A$75.6m from selling 650klb of purchased uranium at US$75/lb; a 1H (Dec-24) snapshot showed net loss A$9.5m on A$47.8m revenue; full-year TTM net loss ~−A$32.6m.

The bomb — serial destruction of the nameplate:

1. 28 July 2025: alongside the Q4 report Boss flagged "potential challenges … in achieving nameplate capacity" due to "less continuity of mineralisation and leachability," announced an independent expert review, and cut FY26 guidance to 1.6 Mlb (from the 2.45 Mlbpa nameplate). Stock −44% in one day. FY26 AISC guided A$64–70/lb (US$41–45/lb) vs the old EFS LOM AISC of US$25.62/lb — a jump to ~US$43.64/lb at the midpoint.
2. December 2025: the review confirmed "material and significant deviation" from key life-of-mine, annual-production and cost assumptions — weaker continuity of higher-grade mineralisation, non-overlapping zones, lower leachability, smaller wellfields, lower pounds under leach per wellfield, shorter life-of-mine, and exclusion of lower-grade material from the mine plan. Boss withdrew the 2021 EFS entirely. Stock −22%.
3. Early 2026: heavy/unexpected rainfall damaged access roads → FY26 guidance cut again to 1.40–1.45 Mlb (from 1.6 Mlb).
4. Now: a New Feasibility Study (wide-spaced wellfield design) is underway to reset the resource base and economics, due September 2026 / "late 2026".

Market reaction / what it says: the stock is down ~68–78% from the A$5.63 (May 2024) / A$4.72 (52-wk) highs to A$1.155 (1 Jul 2026), market cap A$421m. The market has fully repriced from "low-cost growth producer" to "distressed single-asset turnaround with a cash buffer." The tape is telling you the reserve model — not the uranium price — is the swing factor.

Unusual vs. its own history: withdrawing a feasibility study is one of the most severe admissions a resource company can make. It resets the entire valuation basis and is why forward multiples (below) are close to meaningless until Sept 2026.

Lens 6 · Earnings Calls (sentiment trend)

No transcripts on the shelf; sentiment reconstructed from quarterly commentary.

• Restart era (2024): promotional, confident — "Australia's next uranium producer," beating restart milestones, NIMCIX columns commissioning on schedule. Management (Craib) leaned into growth-to-3-Mlbpa and satellite deposits.
• Q4 FY25 (Jul 2025): tone breaks. "Exceeds production guidance but flags future challenges" is the literal framing. The pivot word is "continuity." Management shifts from growth to review-and-verify.
• Dec 2025: capitulation on the model — language of "material and significant deviation," EFS withdrawal, higher cost structure, shorter life. This is the opposite of the 2024 promotion.
• 2026: rebuild-credibility register — "New Feasibility Study," "wide-spaced wellfield design," "on track to meet FY26 (revised) guidance," new CEO signalling operational discipline.

Recurring phrases that appeared: "continuity of mineralisation," "leachability," "optimised lixiviant chemistry," "wide-spaced wellfield design." Phrases they stopped saying: "2.45 Mlbpa nameplate," "US$25.62/lb," "low-cost producer," "3 Mlbpa+ with satellites." The disappearance of the nameplate and the cost figure from the vocabulary is the sentiment signal — management stopped defending the number and started re-deriving it.

Lens 7 · Comps

Uranium peer table.

Read of the comps: the whole sector trades on pounds-in-the-ground + a bull uranium curve, not earnings — hence the sea of n/a P/Es. The most damning comparison is Paladin (A$4.2B) vs Boss (A$421m): both are ASX ISR-adjacent restart stories, but Paladin raised FY26 guidance to 4.5–4.8 Mlb and is ramping Langer Heinrich to 6 Mlbpa nameplate, while Boss withdrew its study. That ~10x market-cap gap is the price of execution divergence. The cleanest peer conclusion: for uranium beta without single-mine operator risk, Sprott physical (U-U.TO) or Cameco dominate Boss on risk-adjusted terms until Boss re-establishes a nameplate. A forward P/E of ~7 on BOE is not "cheap" — it is a number built on a production assumption the company itself has disowned.

Lens 8 · Stock-Price Catalysts (>5% moves, last ~5 years)

Pattern is unusually clean — the stock reacts to Honeymoon operational credibility, far more than to the uranium price.

• 2021–2023: ISR restart decision + uranium bull market (Sprott physical trust squeeze) → multi-hundred-percent re-rate. Catalyst = commodity + restart optionality.
• May 2024 (−~10% day): CEO Duncan Craib sold 3.75m shares at A$5.63 (~A$21m, ~72% of his holding), chair and a director also sold, ~A$26m total insider selling at the top. The stock's all-time-high area coincided with insiders cashing out — in hindsight the single best "sell" signal in the file.
• 28 Jul 2025 (−44%): FY26 guidance cut to 1.6 Mlb + continuity/leachability warning + review announced + CEO succession revealed.
• Dec 2025 (−22%): EFS withdrawal, "material and significant deviation".
• Early 2026 (−22% / further legs down): second FY26 cut (rainfall/roads).
• Jun 2026 (+7.6% intraday to A$1.35, then back to ~A$1.0–1.15): uranium-sector rally; +13.8% on 1 Jul 2026 to A$1.155.

What the market actually reacts to: (1) anything touching Honeymoon's resource/nameplate credibility — the two biggest down-days were both self-inflicted disclosures, not uranium-price moves; (2) insider behaviour — the May-24 sell-down led the top; (3) uranium-sector beta only on the up days, as a floor. Implication: the Sept-2026 New Feasibility Study is a binary, high-volatility catalyst — it will either re-establish an investable nameplate or confirm the impairment.

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

• CEO transition (the headline governance event): Duncan Craib (CEO ~8 years, led the restart) announced his step-down alongside the July 2025 shock; Matthew Dusci (previously COO for ~1 year) became MD & CEO effective 1 Oct 2025; Craib moved to a consultancy then joined the Board as NED in Jan 2026. Framed as "planned succession," but the timing — CEO exit announced the same week the nameplate cracked — reads as accountability for the feasibility failure. Dusci owns the New Feasibility Study; he is the "clean-up" operator, not the promoter.
• Track record: Craib delivered the restart (a genuine achievement — Honeymoon was in care-and-maintenance for ~a decade) but the restart was built on a resource model that has now been withdrawn. That is the paradox: operationally he re-opened a mine; analytically the mine he re-opened was mis-characterised. Dusci's record is yet to be written — his sole mandate is credibility repair.
• Tenure & skin in the game — the red flag. The board had publicly committed not to sell until Honeymoon reached production — and then sold ~A$26m within months of first production, at the A$5.63 peak, with Craib offloading ~72% of his stake. Selling on the letter of a promise (production started) while the substance (nameplate proven) was unverified is a serious alignment black mark. Roughly a year later the nameplate collapsed. Whether or not insiders knew, the optics and outcome are as bad as insider-selling gets.
• Capital allocation: mixed. Good: kept the balance sheet debt-free with a large cash/inventory buffer; diversified into US-licensed production (Alta Mesa) cheaply. Questionable: the Alta Mesa stake put US$60m into an asset it does not operate (and whose operator, enCore, has its own disclosure history); the aggressive under-contracting (~16%) left the company exposed just as its own production disappointed — the spot-upside bet only pays if you can produce, and they couldn't to plan.
• Founder vs professional manager: professional-manager archetype (Craib and Dusci are career executives, not founder-owners). Post-sell-down, insider ownership is modest — no founder-owner backstop aligning with minority holders.

Net: a management team that executed a restart but mis-modelled the orebody and then sold the top having promised not to. The new CEO is the right type for this phase, but the trust deficit is real and earned.

Lens 10 · Forensic Red Flags

Acting as a forensic analyst on web-only disclosures (no `` filings — this section is necessarily lighter than for an EDGAR filer, and that opacity is itself a caveat):

• Reserve/resource integrity — the primary forensic issue. The most important "accounting" here is the ore-reserve estimate, and Boss has admitted it was materially wrong and withdrawn the feasibility study. For a resource company the JORC reserve is the balance sheet; a withdrawn EFS is the equivalent of a restatement. Watch for an impairment of Honeymoon-related development capex and potentially the inventory/asset carrying values in the FY26 accounts (year to Jun 2026, reporting ~Aug 2026).
• Revenue quality: FY25 revenue was substantially trading margin on purchased uranium (650klb bought pounds sold at US$75/lb) rather than margin on mined pounds, while produced pounds went to inventory. This flatters the top line ("revenue +129%") while the company runs a net loss — a classic "look at the profit, not the revenue" situation. Inventory accounting (bought at ~US$30/lb, marked/sold at ~US$75/lb) is where the reported margin is coming from, and it is finite.
• Inventory: 1.41 Mlb U3O8 carried (~A$117m+). At ~US$85 spot this is a real, liquid asset — a genuine positive — but it also means reported "sales" can be sustained from the stockpile even if the mine underdelivers, partially masking operational shortfall. Track produced-vs-sold pounds each quarter.
• Cash vs earnings: the company reported "first free cash flow" in Q3 FY25, but full-year remained loss-making and cash on hand (A$37m) is modest relative to liquid assets (A$224m) — most liquidity is in investments + inventory, not bank cash. Not alarming (no debt), but "FCF positive" headlines deserve scrutiny given the inventory-trading dynamic.
• Non-operated asset opacity: 30% of Alta Mesa depends on enCore's reporting and controls. enCore has its own history of disclosure scrutiny; Boss inherits that indirectly.
• SBC / related parties / leases: not sourceable at filing granularity (web-only). Flag as unverified, not clean.

Regulatory findings (required sub-section):

• SEC (EDGAR LR + AAER): research-layer: regulatory/regulatory-findings.md (fetched 2026-07-01) returns 0 SEC findings — Boss Energy has no CIK and is not an SEC filer, so no EDGAR enforcement search is possible. ``
• Non-SEC (ASIC / ASX / other): web search for "Boss Energy" (settlement OR fine OR penalty OR "class action" OR ASIC OR consent) enforcement surfaced no confirmed enforcement action or finalised class action as of this date. However, given (a) the withdrawn feasibility study, (b) the serial guidance downgrades, and (c) the well-documented insider selling near the peak, shareholder class-action risk in Australia is materially elevated — Australian firms routinely file over exactly this pattern (misleading forecasts + guidance downgrades + insider sales). Treat "no action yet" as not yet, not never. ``
• 10-K Item 3 equivalent: n/a — no 10-K; the analogous disclosure would be the Annual Report 2025 "contingencies/legal" note (ASX PDF, not yet ingested). Unverified.
• Conclusion: No confirmed SEC or finalised regulatory/legal finding — verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (0, no CIK) and web search as of 2026-07-01 — but elevated latent Australian class-action risk from the guidance-downgrade + insider-sale pattern; the FY26 Annual Report legal note is unverified pending ingestion.

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test

Lens 11 · Forward Projection

Hard caveat: projecting EPS three years out for a company that has withdrawn its production nameplate and whose economics are being re-derived (New Feasibility Study, Sept 2026) is close to guesswork. Any point estimate here is `` with wide error bars; the honest output is a scenario, not a number to trade on. No forecast.ts create is logged (unattended --watchlist rule; and I have not "genuinely committed" to a base EPS given the study overhang).

Fiscal years: Boss reports to 30 June. So "next three" = FY26 (to Jun-26, nearly complete), FY27, FY28.

Base inputs:

• FY26 production: 1.40–1.45 Mlb Honeymoon + ~0.3–0.4 Mlb Alta Mesa attributable ≈ ~1.7–1.85 Mlb total attributable.
• FY26 Honeymoon AISC: US$41–45/lb.
• Realised price: FY25 sold at US$75/lb; spot ~US$85, term ~US$94 — but only ~16% contracted, so Boss is largely exposed to whatever spot/term is at delivery. Assume ~US$80–90/lb realised on uncommitted pounds.

Scenarios (attributable EPS direction, not precision):

• Bear (study confirms impairment): New Feasibility Study re-bases nameplate materially below 2.45 Mlbpa (say ~1.5–2.0 Mlbpa) at US$40+/lb AISC; a Honeymoon development-capex impairment hits FY26/FY27 earnings; EPS stays negative through FY27, small positive FY28 only if uranium runs to US$100+. ``
• Base: study lands a credible, lower nameplate (~2 Mlbpa) at ~US$40/lb AISC on a wide-spaced wellfield design; Alta Mesa reaches steady-state (Boss share ~0.45 Mlbpa); with uranium ~US$85–95, the combined entity turns modestly EPS-positive in FY27, building in FY28 — but nowhere near the pre-crash trajectory. ``
• Bull (study vindicates a fix + uranium runs): wide-spaced design restores ~2.45 Mlbpa economically, uranium term price pushes toward US$100–110 as utilities scramble, Alta Mesa expansion (extra acreage) lifts attributable pounds; EPS re-rates sharply from FY27. ``

The one number that matters isn't EPS — it's the nameplate the Sept-2026 study certifies, and at what AISC. Everything else is derivative. Until then, forward P/E of ~7 is a mirage built on a withdrawn assumption.

Lens 12 · Bull vs Bear

Bull case. The uranium bull market is structurally real: spot ~US$85, term price broke US$90 for the first time since 2008 and reached ~US$94, utilities are under-contracted and sellers are gaining leverage. Into that tape, Boss is a rare producing, permitted, tier-1-jurisdiction uranium miner with no debt, A$224m of cash+liquids, and 1.41 Mlb of inventory — it can survive the reset without dilution, unlike most developers. Alta Mesa (US-licensed ISR) is ramping to plan and strategically prized amid Russia/Kazakh supply anxiety. If the New Feasibility Study lands a credible (even if lower) nameplate on a wide-spaced wellfield design, the stock re-rates off a washed-out A$421m base toward the analyst A$1.58 target and beyond — a low-expectations, cash-backed call option on both a company fix and a commodity run.

Bear case (permanent-impairment risks).

1. The orebody is structurally worse than modelled, and no wellfield redesign fully fixes it — "non-overlapping zones, lower leachability, exclusion of lower-grade material" is geology, not process; the Sept-2026 study may certify a permanently smaller, higher-cost mine. That is a permanent impairment of the core asset, not a timing issue.
2. Cost structure permanently above the contracted floor/ceiling — if AISC settles at US$40+/lb against contracts struck on a US$25.62/lb cost base, the marketing strategy is upside-down and the under-contracting that looked clever becomes exposure to a mine that can't reliably deliver.
3. Single-asset + non-operated diversification — Honeymoon is the company; Alta Mesa is 30% and controlled by enCore. There is no owned second producing mine to average the risk.

Pre-mortem (it's Jan 2028, thesis broke — what happened?): The Sept-2026 study confirmed a ~1.5 Mlbpa nameplate at US$45/lb AISC; Boss took a nine-figure impairment on Honeymoon development capex; uranium mean-reverted to US$60 as the speculative bid faded; the cash pile shrank funding an endless wellfield build; a shareholder class action over the 2024 guidance-and-insider-sales episode settled for real money; the stock re-based below A$1 and stayed there — a value trap where the "cheap" forward multiple was always anchored to a fictional nameplate.

Are multiples too high? For a de-rated small-cap, "too high" is subtle — the forward P/E ~7 is too high because its denominator (forward EPS) assumes a production level the company disowned. On EV/lb-of-resource the stock is optically cheap, but the resource itself is under downward revision. The market is currently refusing to see that a withdrawn feasibility study means the reserve — the entire valuation basis — is unresolved, and it is pricing a v-shaped operational recovery that the geology may not permit.

Contrarian view: the genuinely contrarian take isn't "Boss is a bargain" — that's the crowded dip-buy. It's that Boss is the wrong vehicle for a right thesis: if you believe uranium goes to US$100+, Sprott physical (U-U.TO), Cameco, or even Paladin give you the upside without betting on Honeymoon's subsurface. Boss only wins the peer race if the Sept-2026 study surprises up.

Lens 13 · Devil's Advocate (short-seller)

Dismantling the bull case — and note the shorts have already been proven right once here (BOE was among the more heavily-shorted ASX names into the collapse ).

• What structurally breaks the model: ISR economics are a function of grade × continuity × leachability × recovery-per-wellfield — Boss has conceded all four moved against it. Unlike a market-price problem, you cannot hedge or wait out bad geology; you can only spend more capex chasing thinner pounds. The business model — low-cost ISR — may simply not exist at Honeymoon.
• Revenue concentration: ~100% of owned production is one mine; FY25 revenue was concentrated in a finite inventory-trading gambit (bought pounds sold at a markup) that cannot recur once the stockpile normalises. Strip the trading, and the underlying producing business is loss-making at current scale.
• Why the moat is weaker than bulls think: the "low-cost producer" moat was withdrawn by management themselves. The only remaining moat (a permitted licence) is shared by every incumbent and doesn't confer pricing power.
• Most dangerous competitor bulls underestimate: not a rival miner — it's Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. If a generalist wants uranium exposure, physical U3O8 with no operator risk is the obvious substitute, and it siphons the marginal bull dollar away from broken single-asset producers. Among operators, Paladin is the direct "same trade done right" that makes Boss look like the inferior expression.
• Worst capital-allocation / governance moves: the A$26m insider sell-down at the A$5.63 peak having promised not to sell pre-production, ~72% of the CEO's stake, ~a year before the nameplate collapsed. That is the kind of fact that anchors a short thesis and a class-action statement of claim.
• Assumptions that must hold for today's A$1.155: that the Sept-2026 study certifies an economic nameplate ≥~2 Mlbpa at ≤~US$40/lb AISC, that uranium stays ≥US$80, that no material impairment/class-action cash-out erodes the A$224m buffer, and that Alta Mesa ramps to 1.5 Mlbpa on schedule under a non-Boss operator. That is a lot of ANDs.
• If growth disappoints 20–30%: on a company already loss-making with a withdrawn nameplate, a further 20–30% production shortfall (very plausible given the rainfall/road and wellfield-build track record) pushes break-even out another year and forces the market to price the cash pile as the only value — i.e. toward net cash + inventory (~A$340m of liquids+inventory vs A$421m cap), meaning limited downside cushion but also limited "cheapness."
• Single scenario that permanently impairs: the New Feasibility Study concludes Honeymoon is economic only at ~1.5 Mlbpa and US$45+/lb — a permanently sub-scale, mid-cost mine — triggering an impairment and confirming the equity is worth little more than its cash. Plausibility: moderate-to-high, given management has already conceded the direction of every adverse variable.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (ordered by information value)

1. Post-review, what is your current best estimate of Honeymoon's sustainable annual production rate and life-of-mine AISC — the numbers the New Feasibility Study is converging on — and how do they compare to the withdrawn EFS's 2.45 Mlbpa / US$25.62/lb?
2. Will the FY26 (to Jun-26) accounts carry an impairment of Honeymoon development capex or inventory, and if so, what is the expected magnitude?
3. Given AISC is now guided above the floor/ceiling in your utility contracts (struck on the old cost base), are any long-term contracts loss-making at current cost, and can they be repriced or exited?
4. The wide-spaced wellfield redesign requires more wellfields — what is the incremental capex and timeline to reach a stable production plateau, and does the A$224m liquidity buffer fund it to cash-flow break-even without a raise?
5. What specifically in the 2020/21 feasibility work led to over-estimating continuity and leachability, and what has changed in your subsurface modelling to ensure the next nameplate is reliable?
6. Why did the Board sell ~A$26m of stock at the peak in May 2024 — having committed not to sell pre-production — and what did directors know about orebody continuity at that time?
7. Are you provisioned for, or aware of, any shareholder class action related to the guidance downgrades and insider sales?
8. On Alta Mesa: what is enCore's current path to the 1.5 Mlbpa steady state, what is Boss's attributable FY27 volume, and how much reliance do you place on a non-operated asset for group cash flow?
9. What is your contracting strategy from here — will you increase the ~16% committed book now that production is more uncertain, or keep spot exposure?
10. How much of FY25/FY26 "revenue" is trading margin on purchased uranium versus margin on mined pounds, and what does the underlying mined-production P&L look like standalone?
11. At what uranium price does Honeymoon, at the re-based nameplate and AISC, generate positive group free cash flow?
12. What is the realistic future of the satellite deposits (Gould's Dam, Jason) — are they still in the growth plan, and at what grade/continuity confidence?
13. What are the acid and resin consumption assumptions in the new plan, and how sensitive is AISC to a 10% change in reagent intensity?
14. What operational KPIs will you publish quarterly so the market can verify the new plan is tracking (pounds under leach per wellfield, recovery %, tenor, wellfields commissioned)?
15. What would cause you to conclude Honeymoon is not economic at scale, and what is the decision framework/timeline for that call?

---