Cameco Corp (CCJ) 2009 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Cameco Corporation first quarter results conference call.

I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr.

Bob Lillie, Director Investor Relations.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator and good day to everyone.

Welcome to Cameco's first quarter conference call to discuss the financial results.

Thank you for joining us.

With us today are four of Cameco's Senior Executives.

They are Jerry Grandey, our President and CEO, George Assie, our Senior Vice President Marketing and Business Development, Tim Gitzel, is Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and Kim Goheen, is Senior Vice President and CFO.

We are also joined by our colleague [Rochelle Gerard], Manager Investor Relations.

Jerry will start things off with a few opening comments around Cameco's results and updates on a number of operations and developments and the latest on the agreement with Centerra and the Kyrgyz government.

Then we'll open it up for your questions.

Today's conference call is open to all members of the investment community including the media.

During the Q&A session, please ask just one question and one follow up if needed.

Please note that statements made by the Company during this conference call including statements regarding its objectives, projections, estimates, expectations or predictions contain forward-looking information and statements within the meaning of applicable Canadian and US Securities Laws.

The Company cautions that such information and statements involve risk and uncertainty and that actual results could differ materially from those contained in them.

In addition, certain material factors or assumptions were applied in drawing the conclusions or in making the forecast or projections reflected in them.

Additional information about the material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially and the material factors or assumptions that were applied are contained in Company's annual information form dated March 27th, 2009 and the Company's annual management discussion and analysis dated February 16th, 2009, both of which are available on SEDAR and EDGAR.

With that, I will turn it over to Jerry.

Thank you, Bob.

My welcome as well to those joining us today on Cameco's first quarter conference call and to those listening on the web.

At Cameco we continue to produce results that confirm our future is bright.

Once again we are reporting healthy gross revenue plus continued strong cash flow from our operations.

And while we are reporting lower net earnings than comparable quarter of 2008, a major component of that change relates to opportunities Cameco finds in the uranium market.

Our reason for purchasing in the first quarter was for one purpose only, to seize trading opportunities which our marketing staff identify.

When we enter the market to take advantage of trading opportunities, we often acquire uranium at prices significantly higher than our production costs.

This action results in our reported unit cost of sales being driven higher.

And of course that flows through to margins and earnings.

Down the road, we will realize additional revenue in earnings as we deliver the purchase material to our customers.

Cameco continues to benefit from our long-term pricing strategy in our core uranium business.

This structures the Company for the long haul, enables us to ride out the current recession and be well positioned as a leading producer in a growing market.

The financial strength of Cameco as a long-term investment is being recognized as more investors begin to understand that our fate is not dependent on the thinly traded spot market for uranium.

Today our long-term contract portfolio is almost evenly split into three pricing mechanisms: fixed or escalated base price, market-related tie to the spot price indicator and market-related tie to the long-term price indicator.

Of course Cameco is both a mining company and an energy supply company.

Many companies in both of these sectors have had to make tough decisions in the past six months.

They've scaled back, curtailed activities and shelved projects aimed at delivering future supply.

The same is not true for Cameco.

Our strong position reflects our past prudence, in assessing what the future market for uranium would be and our refusal to buy assets at prices we did not believe were sustainable.

One of the reasons for the success of our equity offering in February was a recognition by investors that Cameco is indeed a financially solid supplier of uranium fuel under long-term reliable contracts.

And investors should rest assured that our customers, both current and potential, need secure, long-term uranium supply as nuclear power generation expands, an expansion that is real and happening now.

In 2008, the world saw construction begin on ten new reactors.

This is the greatest activity in new reactor construction in nearly a quarter century.

And we know that not all planned reactors will move to construction, but we expect the pace of new reactor starts to continue, especially in Asia as governments and utilities make long-term commitments to meet their growing demand for electricity.

Our view sees the world's nuclear fleet ten years from now having a net gain of more than 95 operating reactors with a corresponding increase in uranium demand.

We're seeing Asian utilities invest in mine development, buying future supply.

In doing so, they see that securing fuel for their reactors must cover the cost of bringing new deposit into production and this bodes well for the long-term price of uranium.

Even in the short term, we would point to the views expressed in the recent World Nuclear Association symposium in Sidney, Australia.

Views on why the spot market of $40 that existed in early April may now have been the bottom of this cycle.

Indeed, some analysts are predicting a continuation of the upward trends seen in recent spot market transactions.

Speaking briefly to our own Q1 uranium revenues.

The realized price achieved by Cameco for uranium sales in the quarter was slightly higher than our year end projections as contained in the five-year indicative price table, which we update each quarter for guidance.

We have to take a moment and look at the operational highlights for the quarter.

With regard to river Key Lake operations produced 3.6 million pounds, their best first quarter in three years.

This will facilitate a scheduled mill maintenance shut down in Key Lake this month.

Good progress was made at McArthur River and freeze wall development in areas that will be mined later this year.

At Cigar Lake, we know that many of you are impatient to see development resume.

We are, too.

But we intend to do it systemically to asure success at each step.

Like one of [fabritjet] eggs, the orebody is to valuable to cut corners in its development.

Today at Cigar Lake we're using remotely operated vehicles to clear mine infrastructure from the 428-meter level in preparation to pour bulkhead.

Once sealed, we will resume the dewatering of the mine workings, work that is expected to take the rest of 2009.

In the meantime, water has been removed from shaft 2 at Cigar Lake and new electrical ventilation in pumping infrastructure has been installed.

Several advanced exploration projects continue elsewhere in the Athabasca Basin and Australia.

Cameco's presence in Western Australia has been established with the opening of the office in Perth to manage the Kintyre joint venture with permits expected soon that will allow us to reestablished the camp and begin the process of confirming the historic resource.

In fuel services, revenue and gross profit essentially held even over the quarter despite lower sales volumes.

We continue to project the restart of the UF6 production at Port Hope in the second half of the year.

Our investment in Bruce Power B units provides steady distributions in the first quarter with higher revenue driven by a 97% capacity factor for the quarter.

As we have discussed in today's news release, Bruce Power earnings could decline 5% to 10% for the year because projected lower realized prices.

However, the B units at Bruce Power do have floor price protection.

The issue with respect to electricity prices is not entirely one of lower industrial demand as supply is expanding and lower fossil fuel prices are also playing into the mix.

As we announced yesterday, the Kyrgyz Parliament has ratified the agreement between Cameco, Centerra and the Kyrgyz Republic, thereby aligning the parties business interests.

In addition, the agreement lays the foundation for Cameco's exit from the gold business in an orderly fashion and will allow us to concentrate our efforts entirely upon being a dominant uranium fuel supplier.

With that, we'll turn the call to the operator for your questions.

Thank you we will now take questions from investors, analysts and media.

(Operator Instructions).

The first question is from Oris Walkada from Canaccord Adams.

Please go ahead.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

I was hoping you could elaborate a little more on the cost in the quarter.

You indicated that you purchased some material, I guess on the spot market.

But I'm just a little confused how that could have moved the year average cost that much, and can you remind me what your basis of inventory accounting is again?

Okay.

I'll ask Kim to do that.

Yeah.

The big-- we use average costing for the inventory.

So you purchased enough material to move your average cost that much?

We expect to move it that much during the year, yes.

Remember, what we-- as we commented in there, there is a dramatic difference between our cost of production and buying material in the market in the open market.

It can have-- well, we are forecasting that they have that big of an impact, yes.

Okay.

I'm surprised we didn't see that kind of impact if we look back to a period of higher prices when you look back a year or two ago.

We were not purchasing the amount of material back then.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next question is from David Snow from Energy Equities Inc.

Please go ahead.

Yeah.

Hi.

I'm wondering if you could bring me up to date on your estimates of what world production was in 2007, 2008, this year and your ten year route?

Okay, David.

We'll give it a try.

My recollection 2007 was about 106, I'm looking at George.

Maybe do you have the figures there, George?

Yes, I do.

You have the figures.

I'll let you go ahead and do it.

Okay.

Better then do it from memory.

All right.

Our estimates through 2007 were 107 million pounds.

Okay.

And in 2008, 115 million pounds, and those are-- that's world production.

And 2009?

And for 2009 we're estimating somewhere in the order of 125 million pounds to 130 million pounds.

And your ten year route?

I don't have that.

Yeah, I don't think we have that number.

Not in front of me, no.

Well, what would be with the megawatts, you mentioned 95 new reactors, what would be the megawatts?

Of course it would depend on the size of the units.

My-- I think the assumption is they're all going to be bigger than 1,000 megawatts perhaps up to the EPR side, 1,600, somewhere in that range depending on what utilities choose, so multiply it by 95 will give you the gigawatts.

And the inventories, are they starting to be worked down in the near term years of the next three years or how do you see in terms of immediate demand?

If you look back inventories have been worked off and declining since 1986.

So the production has been in a deficit every year from that year and that's projected to continue.

So we-- as we've said repeatedly, we know inventories are final, they become increasingly kept for future supply.

And so in the next three years, and indeed beyond, the inventories are going to make up the difference between the 180 million pounds of annual consumption which is growing at about 2% to 3% a year.

And the production statistic we gave you earlier.

Well, I thought the demands were covered by contract.

So I guess I'm just trying to figure out when the contracted demands are going to start being uncovered again.

Okay.

George, you've got that.

Yeah, you have to go several years out.

If you go out to, I would say really the beginning of 2012, 2013, you see that uncovered utility requirements are starting to grow significantly.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

The next question is from Greg Barnes from TD Newcrest.

Please go ahead.

Yes thank you, operator.

Just on that note, too, George, it seems from reading the press that a lot of the buying in the spot market recently has been buy the utilities.

And the question is are they dragging forward purchases in-- to take advantage of the low prices and therefore they won't the be there later on in the year or next year?

A question I have been trying to roll around in my head for a while.

About half of the, believe that about half of the purchases that have taken place have been made by utilities and certainly they'll be looking-- some of them are looking to buy for actual needs now but certainly many will be looking to fill in uncovered requirements that they have over the next few years.

But that just continues on.

That's always the case.

The other point I should make though is that talk about utility buying, a good portion of that would have to be attributed to the Chinese.

And in their case, they're certainly looking to stock pile significant quantities of inventory for the Chinese program.

Have you seen Chinese buying in recent months?

Yes, absolutely.

A big proportion of the 50% of utility buying that we see?

I believe, yes, I believe that China would account for a significant portion of that buying.

Okay.

Very interesting.

Just on another question, on the globalized enrichment program, I think Jerry the last conference call there was a suggestion by second half this year to have a better view on what's going on there, any update?

The update is that test loop will begin I think we're saying still in June.

Is that?

Mid-year, yes.

Mid-year, and with that, Greg we'll watch to see how it performs probably over a 12 month period of time or maybe a little bit longer.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

The next question is from [Gordon Putnam] from (inaudible) Capital.

Please go ahead.

Thanks, operator.

Tim a question for you.

Is Tim on this call, Jerry?

I wasn't on the start.

Is he on?

Gordon, Tim is eagerly awaiting your question.

That's very kind of you.

Tim, on the number 2 shaft at Cigar in the press release, and Jerry highlighted it as well, that you've talked about equipping that shaft, re-equipping it partially.

I presume that's what-- that's the gear that's needed to resume sinking, and that-- when will thinking resume is the other part of the question?

The, Gordon, the good news on shaft number 2 is that it is dry at the bottom.

There's guys standing down there working now.

We've run the ventilation and piping down there and we're just going to put it on hold right now while we focus our efforts on the mine, and on

Okay.

The (inaudible) level of the mine.

So we're just-- it's prepped and ready to go as soon as we make the call to go back in we'll start driving it down again.

No, that's a major milestone.

It has been a long time.

When you start sinking again, Tim what's the estimate of getting that shaft to bottom on a normal sinking schedule?

I don't have the exact time.

But I can tell you that piece is not on the critical path.

We need to get underneath and do some freezing plans, still have to do some freezing from the bottom up into that area.

So I don't have the exact time it would take to get to the bottom but it's within the time frames we've set up.

Okay.

And at Key Lake there was some talks about environmental review at each point in the process, I'm going back and thinking about the original submittal in 2006, you talked about a three-phase program.

Are you nearing the end of Phase I or help me out with where you are in that process?

Yeah, we're just in front of -- we're in front of the Commission this week on, you're talking about the molly selenium piece, I assume.

Yes, sir, yes.

And we were there Wednesday and presented an update to them.

Phase I is now in place.

It's a circuit, the molly selenium removal circuit that is in place and operating well.

We had some learning curve to move up over the past few months, but now it's really working well, and it's taking the molly right out.

And selenium, a large proportion of it, we've got a little bit of fine tuning to do that yet and we'll do some more over the next months.

We said we would go back in November and report again progress to the Commission and in the meantime, we're not perceiving the phases 2 and 3.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

The next question is from Ian Howat from National Bank Financial.

Please go ahead.

Yeah.

Hi.

Just following up on your purchases in the near term here, in the market, your average price for the year would appear to be, or the price for the quarter was 39.

It would appear you're actually in a way essentially buying and losing money on those transactions, I'm just trying to understand that.

Well we wouldn't be doing that, Ian.

I know but that's what appears to be what's happening.

I think the comment is the market obviously is going up and down.

And we've tried to take advantage of those movements in anticipation, while positioning ourselves to later buy and try as we do take advantage, and understand too that by being a participant we can hopefully influence what happens in the market.

Ian, I would add to that, too again as I've mentioned, George here, because of an averaging system, you really cannot identify material that we purchased in a quarter to a sale we made in that same quarter.

And what-- they can vary across different periods of time.

The sale might have taken place last year, it may take place next year, it may take place later this year.

You really can't do that but we do assure you we are not buying material to turn around and sell it at a loss.

No, I have a feeling you weren't going be delivering $40 into a $25 contract or something, no I understand that.

All right, that was it.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Ian.

Thank you.

The next question is from Simon Tonkin from Thomas Weisel Partners.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Jerry.

Just wondered, in your MD&A, there was some drilling undertaking at Rabbit Lake and it said it encountered some significant new uranium utilization.

Could you go into a bit more detail there?

Only that we're encouraged, I don't have any of that.

But it's near the existing underground workings.

Grade not insignificant, it was better than what we're mining which is around 1%.

That's where we're currently mining, but of course it's all from surface drilling.

So we're going to have to get closer to it and flush it out, but I think we were quite encouraged that an extension of the existing workings looks it'll give us longevity if those reserves or if those drilling results ultimately come into reserves.

And we've got a ways to go before that happens, but we're encouraged.

Okay.

In terms of Inkai, just wanted to ask the supply issue, it seems like it's sort of abating and just wondered if there's any chance of maybe some upward revisions for Kazakhstan in the future?

Well, we're marching toward commercial production and then as we reach that point with the well fields operating well we then will increase our production, pretty much as on the schedule we put out in the MD&A.

Okay.

And just one final one if I may, Kintyre, could you just elaborate on the plans there?

How soon before some sort of development decision is a fair way off or--?

Next couple of years or so we're going to be doing confirmatory drilling, permitting work, getting ready for the various prevention licenses that we'll need ultimately to go into development.

So we'll be going through the feasibility analysis for the next couple of years.

Okay.

Thanks.

You bet.

Thank you.

The next question is from Duncan McKeen from Macquarie Capital.

Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, guys.

I was wondering if I could just follow up on the sulfuric acid in Kazakhstan, you said you were getting adequate supplies, is that just adequate supplies to use today in the well fields or would you be wanting to get more to buildup stock piles if you could?

Just trying to get a sense of that situation.

And also you note that you had two supplier, wondering who those suppliers are?

I'll ask Tim to respond to that, Duncan.

Thank you.

Duncan, Tim Gitzel, we are getting adequate supplies to certify the well field that we need today.

There's a bit of an issue of what-- storage at the site, there's a limited amount that you can store at sites, there has to be a fairly continuous flow.

We've got two suppliers, one internal Kazakhstan, one external that are supplying us now.

We still haven't given up on the idea of perhaps building an asset plan to either ourselves or with local partners.

So we're covering all of the basis on acid, but for now it's fine.

Okay.

And just other question if I could, you mentioned the increased interest in public interest in sort of regulatory oversight in the United States.

Wonder if you could just elaborate a little bit on what you're seeing with regards to the BLM coming in and what impact that could have on future production?

Production to begin with, have increased interest in nuclear and increased the interest in uranium mining, all of that has drawn out those that like to be opposed to uranium mining and development, they of course began asking lots of questions to the regulators.

The BLM, up until a year or so ago, had been pretty well left alone and left it to the nuclear regulatory commission to-- and the state agencies to regulate.

But with a renewed public interest, BLM has concluded that they need to get more engaged in the process, they've begun to look at what they need to do and when they do that it, that inevitably leads to some delays.

And we're trying to get the NRC and the BLM to work out the protocol that would make the system work and be efficient.

Tim, got anything to add to that?

That's exactly the case.

Okay, okay.

Thanks very much, guys.

You bet.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

The next question is from Gordon Putnam from (inaudible) Capital.

Please go ahead.

Tim, the answer where we were talking about Key Lake, and your answer prompted another question, when you meet with the regulators in November, is that to review the success of Phase I and then you would go on with Phase II and Phase III or what's the current arrangement?

Well, November meeting with the regulator, we are referring to it as Cameco days because we got multiple mixed items regarding licensing, some of the other license commission.

With respect to molly selenium, in the meantime, from now until then, we along with CNSC stops that we would work together.

Molly as I said is out of the way, I think on the selenium piece, and look again at the wether we can fine tune the circuit to bring the selenium down even a bit more.

Whether there's certain variations to phases II and III, that could be employed and we're also going to do continue to work on risk assessments to see is these numbers are the targets set for selenium are at the red level.

So that works going to go on between now and November and then we said we would update the commission on that in November.

So it's a joint effort with the commission staff.

Okay.

And Jerry reminded me of something, in the AIF this year, there was discussing this-- it was discussing Kazakhstan and Inkai, there was a part in there where you've asked for relief from the 2009 production goal with your regulator there I guess for the state.

And it said for two reasons, one was the asset issue where limitation of asset availability, which we've talked about, but it also mentioned and low productivity.

And I don't think we have talked about that.

Can you help me out with what's going on with the fields, how are they performing and where have you seen that you needed some relief because of those issues, what are the issues?

Well, Gordon we indeed in block 1, as we were acidifying it intermittently for a while, because we weren't getting the acid, but now as we're acidifying it on a regular basis, we weren't seeing the grade come up like we had seen in our test walk of block 2.

So we put some extra [tease] on it, because we've got a team over there again to take a look at it and see why that was or wasn't happening, and happy to report now that the grade is coming up nicely in block 1 with a regular flow of regular acidification.

So I think we're on the right track, now.

As I said got help from some experts in Kazakhstan and so I think we've got that problem under control.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The next question is from Oris Walkada from Canaccord Adams.

Please go ahead.

A follow up on that-- my earlier question with your cost, I mean I calculated implied cost of $27 million a pound in the quarter.

So am I to assume then if you don't make anymore spot purchases that number should slowly come down as you add lower cost production to your inventory mix?

That would be correct.

Okay.

So it's going be-- if you're not active in the spot market sort of a slow trend back to more historic levels.

Yeah, Oris, we went up to deliberately or explicitly break that out for you as to for the year on our excluding-- exclude the expected purchases the cost will be up 5% to 10% over last year on-- and then the purchase material is what's taking it higher by the 15% to 20%.

Certainly if we don't make the purchases then that impact won't be there.

Right.

And then just more of a strategic question as well, Jerry, I was wondering if you can offer any update on recent comments that you made in terms of potential acquisitions, in term of how close may you-- how close are you or are you sort of just at the preliminary stages of looking at opportunities out there?

I would say, Oris, we've looked continually.

Just take you back, remember we acquired Kintyre in August at the time in the market we thought it was opportune and now we're trying to advance that.

So it's those kinds of opportunities that we watch for continuously, we're not going to do something that's stupid where the valuations are high.

And so watch for us to be patient but always watching.

Are you still considering something very sizable?

I think you mentioned a number around $2 billion last time?

News paper mentioned the number.

So-- but it was attributed to me.

And I simply observe to the newspaper, that as we survey the universe of opportunities that are out there, there aren't many that are outside that range.

That was my observation.

And I observed that any of them within that range, if we felt like it would add value to Cameco, that we could certainly handle it.

Perfect.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Okay.

Thank you.

The next question is from Greg Barnes from TD Newcrest.

Please go ahead.

Yes, thanks.

Jerry, I guess it's just a small point but you noted in the press release that you've stopped production of the SEU at Fort Hope because Bruce is re-evaluating that situation.

Is there some more detail behind that statement?

I think as time has passed, they have evaluated ways at Bruce of achieving the same purpose as using the SEU.

And so they're now in discussions with the regulator about the various options and alternatives and while that discussion is on going, we've just simply suspended the work at Cameco fuel manufacturing until there's a decision coming out of the regulator.

If I recall the use of SEU was going to boost production from the Bruce units by 10%, 15%.

And that's still part of the evaluation that's going on.

But they found other ways to do it without going to SEU to (inaudible).

There are other options that have to be ultimately approved by the regulator.

Any time frame on that?

I believe by end of the year.

Okay.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

The next question is from Brian MacArthur from UBS Securities Canada.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon.

I just want to go back to inventory one more time.

You talked about part of it was purchased and part of it was produced that drove the costs up.

Is that independent of where you talk about the tiered royalty structure now that all of the pools have been used up and you talk about 35 million to 40 million.

Was there a change there because of the way you're looking at how you're booking those royalties in the cost of goods sold which sort of states wasn't available at year end?

No, Brian.

The incremental cost of the royalties is in that 5% to 10% number where we exclude purchases.

Right.

It's all wrapped in there.

But it hasn't changed since year end?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

The next question is from George Topping from Blackmont Capital.

Please go ahead.

Thanks.

Hello, everyone.

Say, Jerry, on the Bruce Power, the average capacity utilization was 97% in Q1, but for the year it's going to be 90%.

Is there planned outages in any particular quarter or through the year or is this just a market related--?

No, no, George, there are planned outages through the year.

I think we mentioned those, did we not in the MD&A?

I didn't see it.

Okay.

Where there are planned outages through the year and that's what results in the 90%.

One of the units, George, is off right now in a planned outage.

I think--

Unit 8.

Six.

Six or 8, one of the two is off right now.

And I believe it's off for 60 days, started in third week of April or somewhere in there.

Another planned outage in the fall.

Okay.

Just secondly, on the-- just going back to the spot purchases again, in the past you've said you target about 10% of your sales coming from the spot volume, can you give us some guidance that is working out through cash costs, what you use to derive your cash cost increase from 5% to 10%, increasing it to 15% to 20%?

George, I'm sorry we can't give you specifically, just to comment is that we have upped our estimate of material that we can acquire and turn around and place into as trading opportunities at a handsome profit.

Really aren't going to be able to give you specific numbers.

Okay, fine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

The next question is from Simon Tonkin from Thomas Weisel Partners.

Please go ahead.

Hi, Jerry just a follow up question on Centerra.

I just wondered if you guys are potentially looking to divest that or taken focus on uranium as you said?

Simon, yes.

We've said for quite a long time that we intend to exit the gold business.

That was impossible until we achieved the alignment of interest that we have done by virtue of the agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic.

That as we-- as the press release said, there are some closing matters that we hope to finish some time in May by the end of May.

No particular schedule, but over time and we've said always in an orderly fashion we will look to exit Centerra.

Okay.

Thank you.

You bet.

Thank you.

This will conclude the questions from the telephone lines.

I would like to turn the meeting back over to Mr.

Jerry Grandey for his closing remarks.

Operator, thank you very much.

I just say in closing that over the years, we've been working quite hard to build the Company, to grow the Company, to put in place a good portfolio of contracts.

We've got 500 million pounds of proven uranium reserves.

Certainly the contracts we have now give us a great foundation off which to build, good resources, good financial condition.

We intend to use all of those advantages to not just maintain the market share we have, but as nuclear power now looks like it's getting good traction and is expanding, to maintain and enhance the market share that we have.

So, with that, with those closing remarks I will thank you all for your interest in Cameco for the questions today, and wish you all a good day.

Thank you.

The Cameco Corporation first quarter results conference call has now ended.

Please disconnect your lines at this time.

We thank you for your participation, and have a great day.