Deep Yellow

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

Deep Yellow Limited is a Perth-headquartered, ASX-listed uranium development company pursuing an explicit strategy to become a "tier-one, low-cost, multi-asset, multi-jurisdiction uranium producer". It generates no product revenue today; it is a portfolio of uranium projects at various stages of study, permitting and early construction.

The asset portfolio (the company is this table):

• Tumas (Namibia) — flagship, most advanced. Calcrete-hosted uranium, 100%-owned via subsidiary Reptile Uranium Namibia. Granted Mining Licence ML237 (20-year term, awarded Dec 2023). Total resource 118.2 Mlb U₃O₈, ore reserves 79.5 Mlb @ 298 ppm, 30+ year life of mine. This is the project the market values.
• Mulga Rock (Western Australia). Acquired via the 2022 Vimy Resources merger. Mineral Resource 115 Mt @ 415 ppm for 104.8 Mlb U₃O₈. One of only four WA projects with State Ministerial approval to mine uranium, and the only one likely to be developed near-term. Undergoing a revised DFS to convert it into a polymetallic operation (Cu, Ni, Co, Zn + rare earths Nd/Pr/Tb/Dy) after a 26% uranium resource upgrade and a 200–400% uplift in the critical-minerals inventory; targeting production ~2028.
• Alligator River / Omahola / Nova JV — earlier-stage exploration assets (Northern Territory + Namibia) providing resource optionality, not near-term value.

Business model / contract structure. Uranium is sold to nuclear utilities predominantly under long-term contracts (typically 3–10 year terms), not spot — a structure that matters enormously here because DYL has explicitly made its FID contingent on securing long-term offtake at a price that supports economics, not on spot strength. As of the sources reviewed, no binding offtake contracts have been publicly disclosed — a material gap versus peers (Bannerman signed 60% LOM offtake with CNNC; see Lens 3).

Customers / suppliers / competitors. Customers = global nuclear utilities (US, EU, Asia). Key supplier/infrastructure counterparties for Tumas = NamWater (state water utility — a 2.5 GL/yr, 65 km pipeline and water-supply agreement still being negotiated) and EPC/process-plant contractors (major equipment tendered/awarded by Mar 2026). Competitors = the ASX uranium cohort (Paladin, Boss, Bannerman, Lotus) plus global majors (Cameco, Kazatomprom) who set the price DYL depends on.

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

Map: geology/resource → mine & process plant → U₃O₈ ("yellowcake") drummed on-site → converter/enricher → fuel fabricator → nuclear utility reactor. DYL sits at the very upstream (mine + mill) end; it never touches conversion/enrichment/fabrication.

Named stakeholders along the Tumas chain:

• Upstream inputs / infrastructure: NamWater (fresh water via the Swakopmund Reservoir, 2.5 GL/yr pipeline); grid/solar power (a NamWater-linked desalination + PV plant is in ESIA via SLR Consulting); Namibian Ministry of Mines and Energy (ML237 grantor) and Ministry of Environment (EIA approvals).
• The company: Reptile Uranium Namibia (Tumas operating subsidiary); Deep Yellow Limited (parent, Perth).
• Downstream: yellowcake buyers = nuclear utilities via traders/converters. DYL has no disclosed named offtaker yet — the single biggest hole in the chain map. Contrast Bannerman → CNNC (China National Nuclear Corp) as both financier and 60% LOM offtaker.

Chokepoints / single-source dependencies:

1. Water in the Namib desert. Tumas is 80 km from Swakopmund in one of the driest places on earth; the whole operation hinges on a not-yet-executed NamWater bulk-water-supply agreement. This is a genuine single-point-of-failure, not boilerplate risk.
2. The uranium price itself is the ultimate upstream "input" — DYL cannot sanction the mine until the price the market sets clears ~US$82.50/lb on a long-term basis. It is a price-taker with no ability to force the chain into motion.
3. Namibian sovereign/regulatory dependency (mineral rights, environmental permits, water) — Namibia is a Tier-1 uranium jurisdiction (hosts Rössing, Husab, Langer Heinrich) so this is comparatively low-risk, but concentration in one African jurisdiction for the flagship is a real exposure.

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

For a pre-production miner, "moat" reduces to: orebody quality, jurisdiction, team, and balance sheet — because the product (U₃O₈) is a fungible commodity with zero brand differentiation. On each:

• Orebody / scale — moderate-strong. 118.2 Mlb (Tumas) + 104.8 Mlb (Mulga Rock) = a genuinely large, multi-decade, multi-jurisdiction resource base. But calcrete-hosted Tumas is low grade (~298 ppm reserve grade) with a correspondingly high AISC (~US$38.6–45/lb). That AISC is not tier-one on a global cost curve — Kazakh ISR and Cameco's Athabasca high-grade assets are far lower cost. DYL's "low-cost producer" self-description is aspirational relative to the true global cost leaders.
• Jurisdiction — strong. Namibia + Western Australia are both stable, established uranium jurisdictions. This is a real, durable advantage over African/Central-Asian juniors.
• Team — was the primary moat; now impaired. The single largest intangible was John Borshoff, who built Paladin from a junior into a ~A$5B multi-mine producer and personally delivered Langer Heinrich + Kayelekera — the only two new conventional uranium mines built globally in ~20 years. That execution-credibility premium was a genuine moat. He stepped down as CEO effective 20 Oct 2025 (see Lens 9). The moat is now materially weaker.
• Bargaining power — weak (as a developer). DYL needs utilities/financiers more than they need DYL (it is one of many undeveloped pounds). Its power rises only if/when the market tips into acute deficit and un-contracted pounds become scarce. Versus suppliers (NamWater, EPC contractors) it is a price-taker.
• Switching costs / network effects / IP — essentially none. Commodity producer; no defensible IP.

Verdict on moat: the durable edge is large resource + Tier-1 jurisdiction; the fragile edge was the man, and he's gone. Everything else is leverage to the uranium price, which is not a moat — it's a bet.

Lens 4 · Segments

No revenue segments exist — the company is pre-revenue, so segments.csv is empty and there is nothing to break out by product or geography on an earnings basis. n/a — pre-revenue, no segment P&L.

The analytically useful "segmentation" is capital and value by project:

• Tumas (Namibia): the overwhelming majority of NPV and management attention — post-tax NPV₈ ~US$577M @ US$82.50/lb. ~90%+ of the near-term equity story ``.
• Mulga Rock (WA): optionality; value depends on the revised polymetallic DFS. Currently a call option on critical-minerals economics, not a base-case cash generator.
• Alligator River / Omahola / Nova: exploration ballast, immaterial to valuation today.

Geographic exposure: Namibia (flagship) + Australia (secondary) + NT (exploration) — a deliberate two-jurisdiction diversification that was the strategic logic of the Vimy merger.

---

Phase B — Measure performance

(Re-pointed from "earnings" to "development-stage cash & catalysts" — there are no earnings.)

Lens 5 · Latest result — cash burn, dilution & runway (not earnings)

The relevant "print" for a developer is the quarterly cash flow and the balance sheet, not EPS.

• Cash trajectory (declining, as expected pre-production): A$203.5M (30 Sep 2025) → A$187.2M (31 Dec 2025) → A$171.6M (31 Mar 2026).
• March 2026 quarter spend: A$11.9M project development + A$2.5M exploration = ~A$14.4M cash outflow on activities.
• H1 FY26 (to Dec 2025) result: net loss A$7.78M — normal for a pre-revenue developer (G&A + study costs, no offsetting revenue).
• The big capital event — heavy dilution: DYL raised ~A$250M including a A$220M placement of 179,591,836 new shares at A$1.225 across two tranches (mid-March + early-May 2026). On a ~975M share base that placement alone is ~18% dilution ``, and it was priced below the then-market and far below the A$2.97 high — a classic developer "raise into weakness to de-risk the build" move.
• Balance-sheet flags: no debt burden of note (the raise was equity); the flag is the reverse — DYL is funding a US$474M build primarily with dilutive equity because it has not secured project debt/offtake financing the way Bannerman did with CNNC. Cash of A$171.6M against a US$474M (~A$720M+) initial capex means substantial further funding is still required — more dilution or a debt/offtake package is coming.
• Market reaction: the stock fell ~11.8% on 6 Mar 2026 on the H1 loss + CEO-transition news, and sits at A$1.455 (6 Jul 2026) — near the low end of its A$1.30–2.97 52-week range. The tape is telling you the market has de-rated the "just-add-price" story.

Unusual vs. its own history: the confluence of (a) founder departure, (b) an 18% dilutive raise below market, and (c) an FID that has now slipped from March 2025 into indefinite "price-contingent" territory is the most negative cluster in the company's recent record.

Lens 6 · Management commentary / sentiment trend

No earnings-call transcripts exist on the shelf (transcripts=0) and this is a developer, so the analogue is management's corporate-update / quarterly narrative tone. Observable shift across 2024 → 2026:

• 2024: confident, production-imminent framing — "significant progress raising capital," "commencement of production at Tumas in 2H 2026". Note that this 2H-2026 target has effectively lapsed.
• Early 2025: FID targeted March 2025, then deferred (April 2025) citing insufficient uranium prices.
• 2026: the language has hardened into discipline / patience — "technically ready," but FID "still price-driven," will sanction "only when long-term contracts and pricing support project economics, rather than relying on short-term spot price strength". Management stopped promising a production date and started emphasising readiness and price contingency.

Recurring phrases: "tier-one, low-cost producer"; "price-disciplined FID"; "technically ready." Things they stopped saying: a specific first-production date. The tonal shift from "we're about to produce" to "we're ready but waiting for the market" is the honest read of a management team that has chosen not to build into a price it deems too low — defensible capital discipline, but it converts the stock into a pure price-and-time option.

Lens 7 · Comps — EV-per-pound & stage (not P/E)

Earnings multiples are meaningless (no earnings). The right frame is market cap / EV vs. resource pounds and stage. Numbers are `` and conflict across sources/dates — treat as indicative, not precise.

Read-through: DYL sits between Bannerman (smaller, but financed) and Paladin (much larger, producing). Jefferies flagged more upside for Deep Yellow than Paladin if project financing comes through — which is precisely the open question. On EV-per-pound DYL is not obviously cheap given (a) low grade / high AISC and (b) the still-unfunded, un-contracted, un-sanctioned status of Tumas. Multiples such as EV/EBITDA, P/E: n/a — pre-revenue.

Lens 8 · Stock-price catalysts (what moves DYL >5%)

Pattern over the last ~2 years — the stock trades almost entirely on (1) the uranium price and (2) FID/financing signals, with a smaller company-specific overlay:

• Apr 2025: FID deferral → shares to 52-week lows around A$0.79–0.83. FID timing is the single biggest company-specific catalyst.
• Late 2025 – Jan 2026: uranium spot surged past US$101/lb (Jan 2026) → DYL rallied to its A$2.97 high. The stock is a high-beta call on the U₃O₈ price.
• 6 Mar 2026: −11.8% on H1 FY26 loss + CEO-transition news.
• Mar–May 2026: the A$1.225 placement (dilution) capped the stock; it drifted to A$1.455 by Jul 2026.

What the market actually reacts to: the uranium term price, FID/financing headlines, and — newly — management/leadership risk. It does not react much to resource upgrades or engineering-percent-complete milestones, because those don't resolve the two questions that matter (price and money). This is a macro-uranium proxy with idiosyncratic financing/execution risk stapled on.

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

This is the most changed and most important lens.

1. Track record — historically elite, now in transition. John Borshoff, MD/CEO from Oct 2016, is one of the most credentialed uranium builders alive: 50+ years in uranium, founded Paladin (1993) and grew it to a ~A$5B multi-mine producer, personally delivering Langer Heinrich + Kayelekera — the only two new conventional uranium mines built worldwide in ~20 years. His presence was a large part of the DYL premium.
2. The transition (red flag on timing). Borshoff stepped down effective 20 Oct 2025, staying only as an adviser to end-Nov 2025. CFO Craig Barnes (20+ yrs resources, ex-Paladin CFO 5 yrs, joined DYL Aug 2024) is acting CEO; Chair Chris Salisbury (ex-Rio Tinto, ran Energy Resources of Australia and the Rössing uranium mine) took an executive-chair role to bridge. A global search for a permanent successor was "at an advanced stage" but no permanent CEO had been named as of the sources reviewed.

• The lineage is reassuring (Barnes + Salisbury both carry Paladin/uranium/Rio pedigree), so this is not a governance vacuum. But losing your founder-builder on the eve of a US$474M FID/construction decision is materially adverse — the very phase where his execution track record was worth the most.

1. Capital-allocation history. Signature move = the 2022 Vimy Resources all-stock merger (~A$492M / A$658M reported) that added Mulga Rock and created the two-jurisdiction platform. Rational and strategic. On funding, management has chosen capital discipline — deferring FID rather than building into a sub-economic price — and equity over debt to fund early works (the dilutive A$220M placement). Defensible, but it has cost shareholders ~18% dilution and the stock has still de-rated.
2. Red flags: (a) the CEO departure timing; (b) reliance on dilutive equity because no CNNC-style debt/offtake package is in hand; (c) repeated FID slippage (March 2025 → indefinite) erodes the credibility of stated timelines; (d) no material related-party or comp scandal surfaced this pass — No related-party or excessive-comp findings sourced.
3. Founder vs. professional-manager archetype: the company is transitioning from founder-led (Borshoff) to professional management (Barnes/Salisbury + TBA CEO). For a company that traded on the founder's mystique, this transition is the key management question — the premium must now be re-underwritten on process and pedigree, not on one man.
4. Insider skin in the game: Borshoff's/Barnes's personal shareholding: n/a this pass (verify via ASX Appendix 3Y / Notice of Interest).

Lens 10 · Forensic red flags

Applied to a pre-revenue developer, the classic income-statement/rev-rec forensics mostly don't bite (there's no revenue to mis-recognise). The forensic focus shifts to capitalisation, going-concern, dilution, and disclosure quality:

• Revenue recognition: n/a — no revenue.
• Cash vs. earnings divergence: the company burns cash and books losses — consistent and expected; no divergence to flag ``.
• Capitalised exploration/development: the main forensic watch-item for a developer is how much study/development spend is capitalised vs. expensed on the balance sheet — aggressive capitalisation can flatter the reported position. Cannot assess without the audited annual report — verify capitalised exploration & evaluation asset carrying values in the FY2025 accounts.
• Funding / going-concern: A$171.6M cash against a US$474M initial capex means the accounts should be read for funding-dependency / going-concern language; the build is not fully funded, so expect further equity or debt. This is disclosed reality, not hidden — but it is the central balance-sheet risk.
• Share-based comp / dilution: the 179.6M-share placement is the dominant dilution event; watch also for options/performance-rights issuance flattering non-cash metrics. Quantify SBC from the annual report — not sourced this pass.
• Goodwill/intangibles: the 2022 Vimy merger may carry acquisition goodwill / intangibles subject to impairment testing if uranium economics deteriorate — verify carrying value & any impairment in the accounts.

Regulatory findings (required sub-section).

• SEC (EDGAR): No CIK — Deep Yellow is not an SEC registrant and files with the ASX, not the SEC. No EDGAR Litigation Release or AAER search is possible.
• Non-SEC / Australian & Namibian regulators: a targeted web search ("Deep Yellow" (FTC OR DOJ OR settlement OR fine OR penalty) enforcement) surfaced no material enforcement action, consent decree, fine, or penalty against Deep Yellow across ASX/ASIC, Namibian, or other agency sources this pass. The one civil-society flag on record is opposition from the Conservation Council of Western Australia to the Vimy/Mulga Rock uranium development (2023) — an ESG/permitting-opposition datapoint, not a regulatory enforcement finding.
• Item 3 / Legal Proceedings equivalent: no 10-K exists; the ASX-filing analogue (contingent liabilities / legal proceedings note in the annual report) was not read this pass — verify in FY2025 Annual Report.
• Bottom line: No material regulatory or legal enforcement findings — verified via the pre-run regulatory-findings file (no CIK, so no SEC LR/AAER) and a web search across ASX/ASIC/Namibian and other agencies as of 2026-07-06. ESG/permitting opposition (CCWA, Mulga Rock) noted but is not an enforcement action.

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test

Lens 11 · Forward projection — cash-to-catalyst & project NPV (not EPS)

EPS projection is not meaningful — DYL will book losses until Tumas produces, and production only begins some years after an FID that hasn't happened. So the projection re-points to (a) runway to the value-inflection catalyst (FID/first production) and (b) the project NPV under a price deck. No forecast.ts create in this unattended watchlist pass.

Runway: A$171.6M cash (Mar 2026) − ~A$14M/quarter activity burn ⇒ roughly ~3 years of pre-construction runway on current burn ``. But that runway does not fund construction — a positive FID immediately requires the US$474M capex to be financed (equity + debt + offtake prepay). So the real "runway" question is not survival — it's dilution/financing at FID.

Tumas project value (the number that matters), from the 2023 DFS (restated):

• Post-tax NPV₈ ≈ US$577M, IRR ≈ 19% at a US$82.50/lb long-term price; capex US$474M; AISC ~US$38.6–45/lb; ~3.6 Mlb/yr initial production; 30+ yr LOM.
• Earlier 2023 re-costing cited NPV ~US$570M / A$838M, IRR 27% at US$75/lb in one variant — the DFS is highly price-sensitive; small moves in the assumed long-term price swing NPV and IRR materially. This price-elasticity is the investment case and the risk.

Base / bull / bear framing (developer version — value of the equity as leverage to price + execution):

• Bull: long-term contract price settles US$90–100+/lb (already near there — LT price ~US$94 per Q2 2026 ); DYL signs offtake + debt, sanctions Tumas, builds on time. NPV re-rates well above US$577M and the equity re-rates toward/above prior highs. ``
• Base: long-term price holds ~US$80–90/lb; FID lands in the next ~12–24 months; Tumas is financed with a mix that dilutes further but de-risks; equity grinds higher toward NPV realisation over 2027–2029. ``
• Bear: uranium term price stalls/falls back below ~US$80/lb; FID slips again; DYL keeps burning cash and diluting to stay "ready"; the equity re-rates down toward the A$0.80–1.20 zone it saw at the FID-deferral lows. ``

The single most important line: with the long-term price now ~US$94 — already above the US$82.50 FID threshold — the market's continued discount implies it is pricing in execution/financing/leadership risk and doubt that the term price is durable enough, not simply that the price is too low. If management still won't pull the FID trigger with the term price above its own stated hurdle, the market will ask why — and that gap between "our price condition is met" and "we still haven't sanctioned" is the crux to watch.

Lens 12 · Bull vs. Bear

Bull case. Deep Yellow is a large-resource, Tier-1-jurisdiction, technically-ready uranium developer arriving exactly as the market enters a structural, multi-year deficit — Kazatomprom cut 2026 output ~10%, Cameco struggles to add reliable primary supply, utility contracting is running below replacement, and AI/data-centre power demand is a new secular leg under nuclear. Tumas is permitted (ML237), engineered (>65% detailed design), part-built (bulk earthworks underway), fully studied (DFS), and the long-term price has already cleared its US$82.50 FID hurdle. Management is disciplined (won't build into a bad price) and well-funded (A$171.6M cash, no debt). Optionality from Mulga Rock's polymetallic pivot (rare earths + base metals) is a free call. If the price holds and financing lands, this is a multi-decade producer trading at a fraction of its NPV, with a credible ex-Paladin bench (Barnes/Salisbury) executing the plan Borshoff built.

Bear case (permanent-impairment risks).

1. Uranium price reflexivity. The entire thesis is a leveraged bet on a single commodity price that has already round-tripped from US$0.79 lows to A$2.97 highs and back to A$1.455. If the term price rolls over below ~US$80/lb, Tumas's ~19% IRR at US$82.50 compresses toward uneconomic, FID slips indefinitely, and the equity is dead money that keeps diluting.
2. Financing/dilution overhang. DYL is funding a US$474M build with equity it doesn't yet fully have and no CNNC-style debt+offtake package in hand (unlike Bannerman). Every quarter of "readiness without FID" is cash burn + dilution risk. A large equity raise at a depressed price to fund construction would be permanently value-destructive to current holders.
3. Leadership discontinuity at the worst moment. The founder-builder left on the eve of the build. A US$474M greenfield uranium mine in the Namib desert is a hard execution problem; the person whose track record justified the premium is gone.

Pre-mortem (18 months out, thesis broken). It's early 2028. The uranium term price faded to the mid-US$70s as Kazakh ISR supply returned faster than expected and reactor restarts underwhelmed; DYL never pulled the FID trigger, burned another ~A$60M, and did a deeply dilutive raise to preserve optionality. The new CEO (a competent professional, not a Borshoff) is managing readiness, not production. The stock is back near A$0.90. The bull thesis didn't break on a scandal — it broke on the price not holding and the FID not coming, exactly the two things DYL never controlled.

Are multiples too high? On an EV/resource-pound and option-value basis, DYL is not egregiously expensive, but it is not cheap enough to compensate for un-funded + un-contracted + un-sanctioned status plus low grade / high AISC. The market is right to demand a discount until FID.

Contrarian view (what the market refuses to see). The bear consensus fixates on the FID delay as weakness. The contrarian read: the long-term price is already above DYL's stated hurdle, and management's refusal to sanction is either (a) irrational — in which case the FID, when it comes, is a violent re-rating catalyst — or (b) a signal that management privately doubts the term price is durable or the financing is available on acceptable terms. Figuring out which is the single highest-value piece of work on this name. If it's (a), DYL is a coiled spring; if it's (b), the discount is deserved.

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

Dismantling the bull case:

• What structurally breaks the model: DYL has no revenue and no signed offtake — its "business" is entirely contingent on a future FID that is entirely contingent on a volatile price. There is no floor. A sustained uranium price below ~US$75–80/lb turns the flagship into a permanently-deferred science project that consumes equity.
• Where the value is concentrated: ~90%+ of near-term value is one asset (Tumas) in one country (Namibia), dependent on one un-signed water agreement (NamWater) and one un-secured financing package. That is extreme single-point concentration for a A$1.4B market cap.
• Why the moat is weaker than bulls think: low grade (~298 ppm) → high AISC (~US$38.6–45/lb) means DYL is a high-cost marginal producer, not the "tier-one low-cost" name it markets. In a price downturn, the low-cost Kazakh/Cameco pounds survive and DYL's don't. The orebody is big, not good.
• The dangerous competitor bulls underestimate: Kazatomprom — as the swing "nuclear OPEC" producer, it can flood the market and crush the price that DYL's entire thesis depends on, at will. And Bannerman, which already secured Chinese debt+offtake, is a leaner path to Namibian production that shows what DYL hasn't achieved.
• Worst capital-allocation risk: funding a US$474M build with dilutive equity at depressed prices. The 179.6M-share placement at A$1.225 is a preview; the construction raise could be multiples larger.
• Assumptions that must hold for today's price: (1) term price stays ≥US$82.50 durably; (2) FID lands within ~2 years; (3) construction comes in on budget without the founder; (4) further financing is available without catastrophic dilution. All four must hold.
• If growth/price disappoints 20–30%: a ~25% haircut to the assumed long-term price (US$82.50 → ~US$62) likely pushes Tumas's IRR below a build hurdle → NPV compresses sharply and FID is shelved, and the equity likely re-rates toward its FID-deferral lows (A$0.80–1.00).
• The single permanent-impairment scenario: a multi-year uranium price relapse (Kazakh supply returns + reactor demand disappoints) that makes Tumas uneconomic before it's built, forcing DYL to burn/dilute indefinitely. Plausibility: moderate — the structural-deficit narrative is strong, but uranium has a long history of head-fake rallies (2007, 2011, 2021) that reversed hard.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (ordered by information value)

1. The long-term contract price is now reportedly ~US$90+/lb — above your stated US$82.50 FID hurdle. What specifically is still preventing a Tumas FID today, and what exact conditions must be met for you to sanction?
2. How will Tumas construction be financed — what split of equity, project debt, and offtake prepayment — and how much additional equity dilution should current shareholders expect at FID?
3. Have you signed, or are you close to signing, any binding long-term offtake contracts? Why has DYL not secured a strategic financier+offtaker package (as Bannerman did with CNNC)?
4. With Borshoff gone, who is the permanent CEO, what is their uranium construction track record, and how do you retain the technical team that came from Paladin?
5. Is the NamWater bulk-water-supply agreement executed? If not, when, and what happens to the timeline if it slips?
6. At what sustained long-term price does Tumas's IRR fall below your internal build hurdle, and how do you judge whether today's term price is durable vs. a spike?
7. Tumas AISC of ~US$38.6–45/lb places it in the upper half of the global cost curve. In a price downturn, how do you defend against being a marginal, curtailed producer?
8. What is the realistic first-production date range for Tumas, and why should the market believe it after the March-2025 FID slipped?
9. On Mulga Rock's polymetallic pivot — what incremental capex does critical-minerals recovery require, and does it genuinely improve project economics or add complexity/execution risk?
10. How much of your study/development spend is being capitalised vs. expensed, and what is the carrying value of the exploration & evaluation assets (incl. Vimy/Mulga Rock goodwill)?
11. What is the board's/executives' personal shareholding, and how is management incentivised to a value-accretive FID rather than simply to build?
12. If the uranium price relapses for 2–3 years, what is the plan — how long can you hold "readiness" before you must curtail, and what is the cash-preservation playbook?
13. How exposed is the flagship to Namibian sovereign, water, and power risk, and what contingencies exist if any single infrastructure counterparty fails to deliver?
14. Why is DYL the best vehicle for uranium exposure versus a producer (Paladin, Boss) that already generates cash from a rising price?
15. What would have to go wrong for Tumas to never be built, and how do you protect shareholders from that tail?

---