Cameco Corp (CCJ) 2011 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Cameco Corporation first quarter conference call. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Bob Lillie, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Mr. Lillie

Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Cameco's first quarter conference call to discuss the financial results and our latest assessments following the Fukushima accident. Thanks for joining us.

With us are 6 of Cameco's senior executives. The ar Jerry Grandey, Chief Executive Officer; Tim Gitzel, President; Kim Goheen, Senior Vice President and CFO; Ken Seitz, Senior Vice President, Marketing and Business Development; Bob Steane, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; and Grant Isaac, Senior Vice President, Corporate Services. We're also joined by our colleague Rachelle Gerard, Manager, Investor Relations.

Jerry will begin with brief comments on the quarter followed by his latest perspective on the industry and the aftermath of Fukushima. Then Ken will -- I'm sorry, Kim will comment on our transition to IFRS, after which 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 limit yourself to 2 questions then return to the queue. Please note that this conference call will include forward-looking information, which is based on a number of assumptions, and actual results could differ materially. Please refer to our annual information form and MD&A for more information about the factors that could cause these different results and the assumptions we have made.

With that, I will turn it over to Jerry.

Thank you, Bob, and welcome to all who joined us on our first quarter call.

The financial results we reported earlier today are consistent with the guidance we provided in our annual MD&A. This year's deliveries of uranium are heavily weighted to the second half. As you will note in today's reporting, our expectation is that consolidated revenue will be 5% to 10% higher this year, and our revenue from you uranium will up 10% to 15% compared to 2010. The slight reduction from earlier guidance on revenue from the uranium segment is almost entirely a foreign exchange issue.

On the operational side, the major difference compared to a year ago was that we moved the annual maintenance at our Key Lake mill to late in the first quarter. In the previous 2 years, the maintenance shutdown has been taken in the second quarter. Reordering Key Lake's maintenance cycle meant the mill was down at the same time the McArthur River mine was taking a short production pause to remove a number of abandoned freeze pipes. With the pipes gone, mining can now be done more efficiently without multiple interruptions to remove them. We expect production at McArthur River Key Lake to be on target to meet guidance for the year. The same is true for production from our other facilities. At Cigar Lake, we continue to target the initial production by mid-2013. We plan to issue an updated technical report on Cigar Lake in the third quarter. The report will include revised estimates for capital costs, a production ramp up schedule, operating costs, plus mineral resource estimates.

As you will note, our uranium sales guidance for 2011 is unchanged with our expectation that we will deliver between 31 million and 33 million pounds into the market. This sales outlook for the year confirms what we said in a special conference call 3 days after the tragic earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, setting in motions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex.

We had more than 8 weeks to assess and digest the effects of Fukushima on the nuclear industry and on Cameco. As we stated March 14th and we restate now, our initial response was to do all we could to help Tokyo Electric Power and our other Japanese utility customers. Accommodations we will make this year to defer product deliveries to these customers are not material to Cameco, nor do the events at Fukushima represent any material change for Cameco's business in the longer term. For the industry as a whole, our view of a long-term positive future for nuclear power and increasing demand for uranium fuel remains unshaken.

Of course, a few disagree. The same strident voices that have always opposed nuclear power have become energized anew and are agitating for an end to our industry. However, from the vantage point of 30 years in the business, I find some remarkable differences in the tone of the current public debate compared to what was being said after Three Mile Island and later, Chernobyl. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl had a long-lasting effect on nuclear power's growth and the public acceptance of the technology. Following these events, there were few leaders in science, academia, or government who spoke in favor of nuclear power or even dared to suggest it had a future in the global energy mix. After all, coal, gas and oil were abundant and could easily supply our energy requirements. There was little public concern over carbon emissions at that time.

Now in the wake of Fukushima, we find the world is a much different place. Energy requirements are growing dramatically, and governments which are building and planning new nuclear power installations have for the most part refrained from engaging in knee-jerk reactions. Yes, they are calmly talking about a pause to assess both existing and planned nuclear generation facilities, so lessons learned from Fukushima can be understood and applied. But for the most part, they're talking of this period merely being a pause.

Academics and opinion leaders on climate change and energy security continue to speak out in favor of nuclear's advantages. So far the strident voices that oppose nuclear power have had limited effect on shaping public opinion and government policy. The noticeable exception is Germany, where weak political leadership has made an illogical and emotional decision to close a number of older nuclear facilities. The contrast between those actions and what Germany's neighbors have decided could not be more pronounced. The leaders of both France and the Czech Republic have taken a calm look at their options and recommitted to their existing plans to expand the role of nuclear. Another neighbor, Poland, is continuing with its plans to join the world of clean nuclear energy. For the most part the story elsewhere in the world mirrors this calmer rational reaction.

So why are countries determined to push ahead? The reason is that the world of energy supply is not such a simple place. Part of this story is economic growth. Most of it happening in countries that are also experiencing a rapid rate of urbanization. Look at China, where demographers project that more than 70% of the projected 1.6 billion people living there at the time will be living in cities by 2030. One estimate is that there will be more than 220 cities of at least 1 million people in China by that time. China's nuclear construction program is still expected, post-Fukushima, to increase the country's total nuclear generation by at least 6 fold by 2020.

This unprecedented urbanization and demand for power is not just happening in China. The same holds true for other rapidly developing countries such as India, Vietnam, Brazil and Turkey, whose leaders have reiterated their desire to pursue nuclear development to accommodate sustained and rapid economic growth and to diversify energy supply. But unlike the situation that existed 25 years ago, choices about which energy sources to use are no longer cut and dried. If the choice were merely to pick an energy source that can provide large scale base load electrical power, then coal would carry the day as it did previously. But factor in imperative to have clean air sources of generation, and the policy equation changes in a hurry. What is clear to energy planners and governments is that today's third generation nuclear designs provide the safe technology for clean, large scale power from politically secure sources of fuel.

The expectation is that most new nuclear plants already in the planning process will proceed, even if the current pause pushes some decisions farther into the future. Prior to Fukushima, we expected there would be 131 new reactors operating globally by 2020. Today we expect there will be at least 121 new reactors constructed and operational. Taking into account the reactors that will have reached the end of their life, we see the net gain for the world reactor fleet in 2020 being 91. Prior to Fukushima, we saw the net gain to be just above 100. Either way you express it, our projection of global reactor numbers has been reduced by just 10 in our outlook for 2020.

From a fuel supplier's perspective, we expect this change in outlook will reduce the cumulative demand for uranium over the next 10 years by just 4%. It remains true then that new uranium supply will have to be brought into production to meet this demand. Thus our reading of the Fukushima-adjusted fundamentals of the uranium business leads to one conclusion for Cameco. Very little has changed in the way we see the world. Our strategy of doubling uranium production by 2018 continues to make sense. Our assets at our existing operations and within our development pipeline are among the best in the world. Cameco is extremely well positioned to continue being a world leading supplier to a growing global nuclear industry.

Before I ask the operator to open up the lines for questions, our Chief Financial Officer, Kim Goheen has an update as we report our financials this quarter for the first time presented under the international financial reporting standards. Kim?

Thank you, Jerry.

First quarter of 2011 marks our first reporting period under international financial reporting standards or IFRS. We have recast our financial results for 2010 in accordance with IFRS for comparative purposes. As you may remember from our workshop last December, the transition to IFRS has resulted in several changes that impact our financial reporting. However, you will notice the transition has had relatively little impact on net earnings compared to what we previously reported under Canadian GAAP. The presentation and terminology used in our interim financial statements and first quarter MD&A differ somewhat from that used in previous years.

I recommend that you review the information presented in our current MD&A starting on page 27, and our financial statements. Note 3 to the statements provides background and numbers on the differences relative to amounts reported under Canadian GAAP last year. Information is also provided on the Investor Relations section of our website under the heading IFRS transition. Please contact us with any questions or requests that you may have.

Going forward, our results will be reported under IFRS including comparisons to 2010. We will no longer comment on Canadian GAAP net earnings for last year, although that information is available in our 2010 annual MD&A.

Thank you, Ken. Operator, it is now time to open up the phone lines to questions.

Thank you. We'll now take questions from investors, analysts and media. In order to respect everyone's time, we will take your question and allow one follow-up question. If you have further questions, please return into the queue, and we will get to them after others have had their chance. (Operator Instructions) Orest Wowkodaw from Canaccord Genuity.

The question revolves around the spot market. Wondering if you could disclose to us how active Cameco has been purchasing the material in the spot market post the Japan incident. If you could give us some volume indications that would be very helpful.

Orest, probably not volume indications. We try to keep that a little bit close, but shortly after the incident, we did engage in a little bit of volume just to really judge the depth of selling, the depth of the panic, these kinds of things. And it is something we continue to watch and, like we do every year, we have the ability to intervene when we think it provides more information or might make a difference.

So would it be more than usual type of purchasing or kind of your regular plan?

I would describe it as more regular.

Okay. And that per year I think your regular buying is around sort of 3 million, 4 million pounds?

Anywhere between 1 million and 3 million.

Okay.

Terence Ortslan from TSO & Associates.

Again, a broad question, back to in the aftermath and people actually assessing the situation, coming back to China and India, any -- you're obviously more in contact directly with them than any one of us in terms of understanding the psychology and their concern and level of the change of the possibility. China and India, what would you be able to be transparent for us in the interim, number one, and, number two, have you changed any numbers of expectations on China and what are the numbers for China to be able to observe from the market this year?

Terry, if I got it all, we haven't really changed numbers for either one. As we indicated, there may be, as both countries have indicated, slight pause in approving new reactors. We were in India indeed when the Fukushima event happened, and we have had some communication with them. They seem to be moving forward again deliberately, and Tim actually was in China about 1 or 2 weeks later after Fukushima.

1 week.

Like to comment on that, Tim, just the receptivity you had and their plans?

Indeed, we were over, and Ken Seitz was with me as well. We took the trip over to China to meet with them to discuss business but to also judge the reaction of the Fukushima events, and obviously they had the same reaction of regret for the Japanese people. But after that we talked about their program going forward, and clearly they're still committed to nuclear. The units that they have under construction, some 26 or 27, will continue, and they plan to continue as well with the planned units after a pause for review of those units as well, so we were very comfortable with their response, and I can say that they are staying the course.

Did we get it all, Terry, or was there some other --?

Actually, there was some maybe a knee jerk reaction immediately afterwards, but the Chinese saying that they would be looking into the design or redesign process given the circumstances in Japan. What does that mean, number one, and number two I haven't see much from the Indian side with the restoration and also the reassessment of their profile?

I think every country, India and China, no exception, they will look at lessons coming out of Fukushima, both with respect to plants that are operating and with respect to plants that they intend to build. From what we can tell thus far, particularly for the newer design plants, which of course most of them in China and most of the ones in India, there is not going to be any dramatic effect, but they're prudently saying they're going to understand the lessons before they move forward.

Okay. Jerry, this is your last conference call?

Yes, Terry, it is.

Then personally on behalf of all the many analysts, I would say as well that it has been wonderful dealing with you guys over the years, and Jerry I hope we're going to see you more often now that you have more time.

Much appreciated, Terry. Thank you very much. I will have a few words to say towards the end.

Okay. Fine.

Ralph Profiti from Credit Suisse.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. Another one with respect to the market, Jerry or Ken if he wants to chime in. Just trying to assess the impact of hedge funds, what's your assessment of their responsibility for some of the inventory liquidation and their impact on the prices? And what's your current assessment of their current holdings, and do you expect them to in the short or medium term provide any type of over hang or suppression in the price activity that we're seeing?

Ralph, thanks. I will have Ken handle that one.

Sure. With respect to material that's been flowing in and out of the market, it has actually been relatively quiet post Fukushima. Of course, we saw the price drop in the spot market, but not nearly to the level that some had expected, and then flattened out at around that [CAN50 to CAN5] market. And we haven't seen a lot of volume trading hence in the past month.

And so are hedge funds putting material into the market? Not today. With respect to the overhang, it is the similar overhang that has been pre-Fukushima without a question. Hedge funds continue to hold in excess of 20 million pounds of uranium, but given where prices are at today, we don't expect that there is going to be a rational dumping of uranium into the spot market by the hedge funds, so today it is small volumes changing hands. And people wait and see and what price is going to do here, but we don't expect a lot of material coming into the market from the hedge funds.

I see. Great. And thank you, Jerry, and best wishes to you.

Thank you, Ralph.

Alan Alba from Desjardins Securities.

Good afternoon. My questions were already discussed earlier and thanks very much.

Oscar Cabrera from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Hi, there. Good afternoon, everyone. Jerry, just want to add my congratulations and thank you for everything you have done for us so far.

That's great. Thank you.

Hope to keep seeing you at future events. With respect to your comments in terms of sales for the year, you said that -- could you put a little bit more context in terms of why is it that you expect weaker sales in the second quarter and a third of the 32, I think, is the midpoint 1 million pounds in the fourth quarter, can you put a little bit more context or color around that, please?

As we have tried to communicate, I think year after year, Oscar, this delivery pattern is really established by our utility customers, so going into a year and then through the year we'll get notices from utilities as to when they want to take their product. And utilities have typically, over the long-term I have been in the industry, tried to push it all off to the end of the year so they're not holding inventory for longer than they would like to. This particular year, the notices line up in the way that second quarter is going to be weak and that most -- well, a good majority of the deliveries are going to be in the second half and that will be tilted as well towards the fourth quarter.

That helped a little. Thank you. The other -- just on your comments in as far as nuclear reactors, can you please repeat that number for China for the decade? You said you expect that 100 gigawatts, over 100 gigawatts and now 91 gigawatts. How many of those are China?

How many of those are in China? I think we're still looking at in total about 60 gigawatts to 70 gigawatts in China, so probably a total of new around 40 gigawatts, I suppose, 40 gigawatts to 50 gigawatts, depending on the size of the units. 50 gigawatts, Ken is flashing at me 5 . So I am guessing 50 gigawatts. Thank you, Oscar.

Okay.

Anthony Young from Dahl Rose

Thanks for taking the question. Just an industry question on the marginal costs of production. I know you guys are well below those levels, but when we think about the top 10% to 15% of the cost curve, where do you think that cost is for those guys?

Every time we answer that question, it is such a function of where the US dollar ends up, because this is a commodity that is priced in US dollars but very little of it is produced in the US as we know. Long-term prices we still see in the $60, $80 per pound range, as required to encourage the investment to bring on the balance needed to satisfy demand.

Then just on the permitting side of things, since the incident in Japan, have you seen regulators become more difficult or hawkish, if you will, with regard to looking at permits for new mines and so forth?

I would say generally not. The regulator in Canada asked all operators of mines and power plants to go back and look at the lessons coming out of Fukushima and ask ourselves the questions, more fundamental questions about the loss of offsite, onsite power for an extended period of time. We're going to do that at all of our operations, and we haven't seen similar questions in other jurisdictions yet, but prudence would say every one of us should take a look at lessons coming out of Fukushima.

Thanks for answering the questions, guys.

(Operator Instructions) Greg Barnes from TD Securities.

I guess this is a question for Jerry or Ken. The previous question about the marginal cost of production, [$60 to $80] a pound I think was your answer, Jerry. But what about nearer term and the term price quoted by UX for trade tickers around [$70]. Where do you see, or how do you see that developing over the next while with this pause going on in the nuclear market?

Ken, do you want to give that a try?

Absolutely. So a couple things, I would say, Greg. One is, we have a spread between the spot and the term price at the moment, and so we expect that spread will narrow as some seek to exploit that difference, so spot price move, term price move, one is going to move . But today we see over the next 6 months, we will have some traditional RFQs coming from customers as requirements open up, certainly [CAN12, CAN13] and beyond, and so with respect to the term price, we're looking at it as holding around these levels. It is a recognition that as Jerry said at the outset ,more uranium is required, and so term prices along with the lines of what we're seeing are going to be required here, so spot price volatility absolutely, but we expect that the term price will continue to hold.

Good. Thank you. And just my second question on Inkai. You have the permit to go to 3.9 million pounds. I think that's on a 100% basis. When do you anticipate getting the permit to go to 5.2 million pounds? I think it is this year, but I am just wondering when.

Greg, you are right. It is a 100% basis, and I think we're making good progress and we expect within the year.

Within this calendar year?

In this calendar year.

Great, and my congratulations to you, Jerry. Thanks for all the help over the last several years.

I appreciate it.

(Operator Instructions) This will conclude the questions from the telephone lines. I would now like to turn the meeting back over to Mr. Jerry Grandey for his closing remarks.

I think you guys are letting us off way too easy today. Thank you very much, operator.

I indicated I would have a few concluding remarks, and I just want to take a moment to thank everybody for joining us and just say one thing about Cameco's position within the industry, particularly from the perspective of one who has been privileged to lead this company for now 8.5 years, winding down a career of over 30 years, it has been in the nuclear industry. I have seen and I continue to see Cameco's ability to weather with great resiliency the challenges that come our way.

Earlier I mentioned our world-leading production facilities, the quality of the projects we have in development, all of the them underpinned by our low cost base of reserves and resources. What is not mentioned nearly enough is the quality of our people and their drive to succeed no matter what the challenges. In the months and years ahead under the able leadership of my successor, Tim Gitzel, together with the rest of the executive team, the ability of Cameco to stick to our strategy and prevail will remain.

Certainly these are interesting times for our industry, but such circumstances present great opportunity. So many of you that have joined us on the call today have become friends or at least very familiar voices to me. I have looked forward to these calls, your questions, and have certainly appreciated your ongoing interest in Cameco. For that and for your support, I thank you, and wish you all very well, and good day and a great weekend. Thank you again very much.

The Cameco Corporation first quarter results conference call has now ended. Please disconnect your lines at this time. We thank you for your participation. Have a great day.