May 31, 2015

Research #10Uranium in Canada

Discovery-style drill targets in the Athabasca Basin

One month ago, 40 pages answered the questions why uranium prices are believed to be ready for a long-term resurgence and why more jaw-dropping uranium discoveries are likely in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan in Canada. During the last years, ALX Uranium Corp. took advantage of a depressed uranium market and assembled an impressive portfolio of projects with an exclusive focus on the Athabasca Basin. As such the company is believed to be one of the largest owners of underexplored yet prospective land. These days, the talk of the town is clearly focussed on the PLS (Patterson Lake South) area, where high-grade discoveries have been made over the last few years. Who’s next? Rockstone believes it’s ALX, as those drill targets on its 100% owned Hook-Carter Property (right next to NexGen and Cameco) look impressive to say the least. Follow-up work and/or drilling will start as soon as possible, whereas other properties may see continued exploration as well.

Company Details

ALX Uranium Corp.1450 - 789 W Pender StreetVancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1H2Phone: +1 604 681 1568 Email: rleschuk@alxuranium.comwww.alxuranium.com

Shares Issued & Outstanding: 56,295,232

Canadian Symbol (TSX.V): ALCurrent Price: $0.08 CAD (May 30, 2016)Market Capitalization: $5 million CAD

German Symbol / WKN: 6LLN / A1402P Current Price: €0.046 EUR (May 30, 2016)Market Capitalization: €3 million EUR

Chart Canada (TSX.V)

Chart Germany (Frankfurt)

If ALX Uranium drills such offscale radioactivity (>10,000 cps), as NexGen Energy did in the winter of 2014 at 519 m depth with Hole RK-14-21, its shareholders could yield a potential return higher than NexGen or Fission ever created.

2 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

LX Uranium Corp. has located highly interesting and prospective targets on its

Hook-Carter Property. Once these have been refined more precisely, drilling is expected to start. Rockstone believes that the sole announcement of a drilling campaign will put ALX Uranium on the radar of a lot investors and mining companies as a discovery through the drill-bit could potentially create more shareholder value as NexGen Energy Ltd. (up to +1,020% since 2013; current market cap.: $685 million) and Fission Uranium Corp. (up to +215% since 2013 or +16% since public; current market cap.: $305 million) already did with its respective discoveries. With a current market cap of $5 million, a similar discovery like the one from Fission could translate into a potential +6,000% return for ALX’s shareholders (and +13,600% if a deposit like the one from NexGen can be discovered).

ALX is one of the few juniors active right next to NexGen’s latest high-grade discoveries, whereas latest geophysics have defined 3 top-notch, drill-ready targets on ALX’s Hook-Carter Property.

Below figures are from a recently pub-lished Technical Presentation from ALX showing details about the Hook-Carter targets and the similarities to the near-by Spitfire Zone (39.5% Cameco; 39.5% AREVA; 21% Purepoint), Arrow Deposit (100% NexGen) and Triple R / PLS De-posit (100% Fission).

Below figure shows that these 3 high-grade uranium zones are located on the Patterson Lake Corridor, a geological trend which also runs through ALX’s property to the north. However most interestingly, an observation has been made that the already discovered de-posits in the PLS district fulfill a second crucial criteria of being located at ma-jor cross-cutting structures (e.g. faults; see black curves running through below figure every 5-8 km). Similar disruptions in the regional scale magnetics is also observed on ALX’s property along the Patterson Lake Corridor. The company has identified 3 targets, fully on trend, yet to be defined more precisely for a drill program.

A

Local phase of the residual total magnetic field

The Hook-Carter Property (116,461 hectares: 100% ALX Uranium Corp.) is located at the northern end of 3 distinct structural trends: Patterson Lake Corridor, Derkson Corridor and Carter Corridor. The Patterson Lake Corridor is host to numerous new and expanding disco-veries including the Triple R / PLS Deposit (01/2015 indicated: 80 million lbs @ 1.58% U3O8; inferred: 26 million lbs @ 1.3% U3O8); Arrow Deposit (03/2016 inferred: 202 million lbs @ 2.63% U3O8); and Spitfire Zone (04/2016: 10 m @ 10.3% U3O8 incl. 1.3 m @ 53.5% U3O8).

3 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Historic DrillingThe most interesting drill hole on or beside ALX’s Hook-Carter Property is HK-003 (see red arrow on below left map) drilled by Uranerz in 1999, which was described as follows:

“Excellent sandsone and basement structure and alteration. Hole ended in moderately altered and disrupted graphitic interval. This hole was very encouraging and should be followed up when possible.”

Geochemical sampling assayed a 50 cm faulted zone in the sandstone with 1,170 ppm boron (180 m above the uncon-formity). Another 20 cm sample in clay gauge/fault in the sandstone assayed 26,100 ppm boron (70 m above the un-conformity). Boron is a common path-finder element associated with uncon-formity-style uranium deposits.

Targets on Hook-CarterThere are large gaps in the historic drill-ing on the Hook-Carter Property, up to 4 km between holes along the Patterson

Lake Corridor (see red arrow on below right map). Several target areas were defined by a 2014 Condor Consulting interpretation report. The study utilized data from the following exploration methods: 2006 Airborne EM (MegaTEM and VTEM). Additional information has been incorporated to refine these tar-gets, including:

• 1997-2003 historic ground EM• 2006 Ground Resistivity Survey• 2007 Ground EM Survey• 1996-1997 Historic Boulder survey

4 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

First Vertical derivative of the magnetic field

5 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Boulder Sampling

• Completed in 1996 to 1997 by Uranerz (now Cameco; Report 75F15-0011);

• Follow-up work was completed by ESO Uranium Corp. in 2006.

• A group of anomalous samples with elevated boron are located along the Patterson Lake and Carter Corridors. Boron is a common pathfinder element associated with unconformity-style uranium deposits

6 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Lake Sediment Sampling

• Completed in 1978 by SMDC (now Cameco; Report 75F14-0009).

• A cluster of anomalous samples are located on the Patterson Lake Corridor on ALX’s property.

• Lake sediment sampling is often a first-pass exploration method.

7 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Airborne EM

Airborne electromagnetic (EM) surveys are often the first-pass exploration tool to define graphitic conductors that are often associated with uranium mineralization.

8 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Ground EM

Ground EM surveys are used to refine the location of airborne conductors.

Several ground EM surveys have defined these conductors on the Hook-Carter Property by historic operators (Cameco and predecessors Uranerz) between 1997 and 2003.

9 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Arrow (NexGen Energy) Arrow is proving to be a world-class, high-grade mineralized zone. Many assays from the 2014 and 2015 drilling seasons have reported grades ranging between 0.13% and 67% U3O8 with grades between 1.5% and 5% U3O8 intersected regularly across substantial intervals.

• Global average resource grades are approximately 0.1% U3O8, according to the World Nuclear Association.

• 1% U3O8 is the equivalent of 23.5 g/t gold on a dollar per tonne basis (using $45/lb U3O8 and $1,300/oz gold).

Basement-hosted deposits are some of the most technically simple and economical mines in the uranium sector.Triple R is basement-hosted deposit (positive), however it is located under a lake (negative). In contrast to the Triple R Deposit from Fission, the Arrow Deposit in on land. Not only is drilling on land much cheaper than on lakes but permitting requires less time. Mining under a lake is a much riskier undertaking.

Many Athabasca Basin mines have encountered technical challenges which are a result of the deposits being directlyassociated with the Athabasca Group Sandstone and/or the unconformity (the contact between the Athabasca Group sandstone and the basement rock). Mining these types of deposits typically requires freezing the surrounding rock underground in order to stabilize the ore body for extraction. This can add significantly to CAPEX, OPEX and diminish overall returns. Current operating mines, Cigar Lake and McArthur River (both unconformity-hosted) have mineralization at depths of 480 and 600 m, respectively, that is beneath Athabasca Group sandstone.

There is only a thin layer of Athabasca Group sandstone at Arrow ranging from 10 to 20 m within 80 m of surface, which means that any potential development of Arrow should not encounter costly and technically challenging freezing like unconformity-hosted uranium deposits.

Eagle Point (Cameco)

Arrow is an analogy of the Eagle Point deposits located on the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin, which are part of the Rabbit Lake Uranium District (>202 million lbs of uranium concentrates since production began in 1975). In 1987, a “total ore reserve” (historical; non-NI43-101 compliant) for the Eagle Point deposits comprised 140 million pounds (64,000 tonnes) at an average grade of about 2% U3O8. Production commenced in 1994. The Eagle Point underground mine is in production today, and as of December 2013 has:

• proven and probable reserves: 1.6 million tonnes at 0.56% U3O8 (20 million lbs U3O8)

• indicated resources: 1.2 million tonnes at 0.8% U3O8 (20 million lbs U3O8)

• inferred resources: 708,500 tonnes at 0.58% U3O8 (9 million lbs U3O8)

Eagle Point was initially discovered in 1980 by Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd. while drill testing geophysical and geochemical anomalies northeast along strike from the Collins Bay Uranium deposits. The Eagle Point deposits are a series of moderately to steeply dipping tabular veins and lenses, which are concordant and discordant to variably graphitic Wollaston Group metasediments and underlying Archean granitoid gneiss.

Hook Carter (ALX Uranium)Potentially host to a basement-hosted deposit (at relatively shallow depths), or only with a thin layer of the Athabasca Sandstone, as being the case with Arrow 15 km southeast (Triple R 20 km southeast). Similar style of mineralization (steeply dipping but extremely high-grade and large veins and lenses; i.e. Triple R, Eagle Point, Arrow) possible at cross-cutting structures on Hook-Carter as well.

10 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Eagle Point and Arrow Similarities

By Garrett Ainsworth (BSc, P.Geo) from NexGen Energy Ltd. in

“Eagle Point and Arrow Zone Analogy”

Structure:

• The Eagle Point and Collins Bay deposits are associated with northeast trending reverse faults where graphitic horizons exhibit breccia, shear, and crackle zones. Similar graphitic horizons are observed at the Arrow zone, which are thought to be related to Riedel shear structures.

• Mineralization is often concentrated at intersections with cross cutting northerly sub-vertical wrench faults.

• The lack of consistent association between mineralization and lithology, the discordant nature of the veins, and the presence of microstructures within the veins substantiates that mineralization is structurally controlled.

• At Eagle Point, morphology of the faults has been influenced by the lay-ered nature and marked contrasts in the competency of the Wollaston Group metasediments, by the Wollas-ton Group metasediment and Archean granitoid gneiss contact, and by folds within these rocks. This competency contrast exists at the Arrow zone, as the East Lloyd Domain metasediments and an Archean granodiorite/mafic com-plex contact. Further contrasts within the metasediments exist between hard silicified semipelite and soft pelite (+/- graphite).

• Major reverse faults often develop within less competent graphitic metasediments, where portions of mineralized bodies are often controlled by these faults. However, significant mineralization is also observed with cross cutting faults in non-graphitic metasediments and granitoid gneiss.

• Eagle Point deposits and the Arrow zone appear to plunge away from the Athabasca Basin.

Alteration:

• Zones of extreme alteration extend less than one meter to three meters from mineralization. Key alteration products associated with mineralization include sudoite (Mg-chlorite), illite, and carbonate.

• Alteration spatially associated with mineralization comprises chloritization and illitization of feldspar, bleaching of mafic minerals, and hematization. Hematization is directly associated with mineralization, and is thought to be related to the most recent alteration event.

• At Eagle Point, boron enrichment (dravite) is associated with the bleached zones within five to ten meters from mineralization and along the graphitic shear zones. In addition, the Arrow zone exhibits impressive dravite-breccia halos around the mineralization.

• Carbonaceous material with a char-acteristic odour associated with higher grade mineralization has been observed as small sooty blebs and buttons.

Mineralization:

• Uranium mineralization occurs as lenses, pods, and veins that are concordant and discordant to the metamorphic stratigraphy.

• Differs significantly from typical unconformity-type uranium deposits where arsenides and other deleterious elements are not present. Uranium mineralization at Eagle Point (and the Arrow zone) contains few impurities which would affect the amenability of mineralization to processing. In addition, the Arrow zone contains notable concentrations of gold (10.0 m @ 10.78 g/t Au in drill hole AR-14-30), silver, and copper, which are potentially of economic interest.

• Little chemical variation exists within the Eagle Point uranium deposits such that complex blending or grade control process is not required, which would increase the overall production costs.

At this early stage of development, the Arrow zone appears to also show little chemical variation.

• Intense clay hydrothermal alteration is restricted to mineralized zones, which has left the surrounding host basement rock as competent. This is favourable for underground mining extraction methods.

Prospectivity Along Strike:

• Eagle Point is at the edge of the present day Athabasca Basin where the Collins Bay A zone is located approximately 1.5 km along strike to the southwest within the Athabasca Basin. Collins Bay A zone was a flat lying unconformity-style uranium deposit that was extracted through open-pit mining from 1995 to 1997. Further to the southwest of Eagle Point, the Collins Bay B and D zones were also mined out unconformity-style deposits.

• The Arrow zone is scarcely inside the present day Athabasca Basin where no drill testing has occurred within 4 km along strike to the northeast within the Athabasca Basin, and within 3 km along strike to the southwest outside of the Athabasca Basin.

• The Eagle Point deposits are a series of moderately to steeply dipping tabular veins and lenses, which are concordant and discordant to variably graphitic Wollaston Group metasediments and underlying Archean granitoid gneiss.

“Black-coloured is the mineral called pitchblende, extremely enriched with primary uranium (contains

>50% of uranium). Caution: highly radioactive! Source: NexGen Energy ’s

dril l core from its Rook 1 deposit, Saskatchewan“ (How Saskatchewan

remade uranium mining)

11 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

Uranium Deposits of the Athabasca Basin

Deposit Discovery Status Ore(kilotonnes)

Grade(%U)

Contained U(metric tonnes)

U3O8(pounds)

McArthur River 1988 producer 1,017 22.28 226,588 589,000,000Cigar Lake 1981 feasibility 875 15.02 131,425 342,000,000Eagle Point 1980 producer 3,317 1.54 51,082 133,000,000Deilman - Key Lake 1975 mined out 2,242 2.11 47,306 123,000,000Gaertner - Key Lake 1975 mined out 1,345 1.71 23,000 60,000,000Midwest 1978 feasibility 2,033 1.06 21,550 56,000,000Millenium 2002 undeveloped 840 2.30 19,320 50,000,000Rabbit Lake 1968 mined out 5,840 0.27 15,768 41,000,000Collins Bay B 1977 mined out 2,582 0.61 15,750 41,000,000Dawn Lake 1978 undeveloped 685 1.67 11,440 30,000,000Sue C 1988 mined out 250 4.50 11,250 29,000,000Collins Bay A 1971 mined out 135 4.83 6,521 17,000,000Horseshoe 1974 undeveloped 3,617 0.17 6,149 16,000,000Dominique-Peter 1980 mined out 868 0.64 5,555 14,000,000D-J South and West 1984 mined out 950 0.58 5,510 14,000,000McClean 1978 producer 229 2.06 4,717 12,000,000Cluff Lake D 1969 mined out 108 4.13 4,460 12,000,000Raven 1972 undeveloped 3,063 0.14 4,288 11,000,000Claude 1971 mined out 640 0.37 2,368 6,000,000Collins Bay D 1979 mined out 130 1.66 2,158 6,000,000JEB 1982 mined out 72 2.79 2,009 5,000,000Cluff Lake N 1969 mined out 505 0.34 1,717 4,000,000Dominique-Janine 1980 mined out 230 0.38 874 2,000,000Sue A 1988 feasibility 55 1.26 693 2,000,000Sue B 1988 feasibility 90 0.73 657 2,000,000Maurice Bay 1977 undeveloped 120 0.50 600 2,000,000West Bear 1977 undeveloped 131 0.44 576 1,000,000Fond-du-Lac 1967 undeveloped 200 0.20 400 1,000,000Cluff Lake OP 1970 mined out 26 0.43 112 300,000Stewart Island 1953 undeveloped 7 0.30 21 55,000

Source: Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 588, Saskatchewan Geological Society Special Publication 18; July 2007, C.W. Jefferson and G. Delaney

EXTECH IV: Geology and Uranium Exploration Technology of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta

* All deposits with known or estimated resource amounts available have been listed

Rabbit Lake

Fond-du-LacClu� Lake N

Gaertner - Key Lake

Millenium

0.00%0 100 200 300 700

Uranium Deposits of the Athabasca Basin

Average Ore Grade

Aver

age O

re G

rade

Average Depth (metres)

HorseshoeRaven

D-J South and West

Dominique-Peter

Midwest

Collins Bay B

Dawn Lake

Sue CCollins Bay A

Clu� Lake D

JEB

Collins Bay D

Sue A

Maurice Bay

Sue B

Dominique-Janine

West Bear

Clu� Lake OP

Stewart Island

Claude

0 – 10 million lbs.

10 – 50 million lbs.

50 – 100 million lbs.

> 100 million lbs.

Deposit Size

Deilman - Key Lake McClean

Eagle Point

McArthur River

Cigar Lake

5.00%

15.00%10.00%

25.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

12

About ALX Uranium Corp.

ALX Uranium Corp. was formed as the re-sult of a business combination between Lakeland Resources Inc. and Alpha Explo-ration Inc. ALX is a uranium and mineral exploration company focused on the At-habasca Basin in Saskatchewan, Canada; a leading district in global production for 40 years, and home to some of the world´s largest and richest high-grade uranium de-posits. The newly combined Boardof Direc-tors and management of ALX brings to the junior exploration sector an unusual depth of expertise and track record of success.

Analyst Coverage:

Research #9 “ALX Uranium: Right Next“ (April 29, 2016)

Research #8 “Emergence of the most prospective explorer in the Athabasca Uranium Basin“ (October 8, 2016)

Research #7 “Lakeland Resources andAlpha Exploration Propose Strategic Merger“ (July 23, 2015)

Research #6 “Historic Turnaround in Uranium Prices and Equities in the Making“ (incl. interview with geologist Neil McCallum; November 27, 2014)

Research #5 “Gibbons is getting drilled finally“ (November 5, 2014)

Research #4 “Bright Stars in the Athabasca Basin Uranium Hunt“ (incl. interview with geologist Neil McCallum; February 27, 2014)

Research #3 “Highest Radon Values Ever Detected in the Athabasca Basin“ (January 9, 2014)

Research #2 “No Dead-Cat Bounce: A Dead-Serious Warning From Uranium“ (December 5, 2013)

Research #1 “Athabasca Basin: The Place To Be For The Upcoming Uranium Boom“ (November 4, 2013)

Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

13 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

14 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

By World Nuclear News on May 19, 2016

The design of European wholesale electricity markets and the emissions trading system (EU ETS) will be improved to help - and no longer hinder - nuclear energy as a low-carbon source of electricity, a European Commission official assured delegates at a nuclear financing conference held in Paris last week. The conference, titled Nuclear energy’s role in the 21st century: addressing the challenge of financing, was jointly organised by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation.

European power producers argue they have limited incentive to invest in new nuclear capacity amid low wholesale prices, while an oversupplied EU ETS does not encourage a move away from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of electricity, such as nuclear.

Gerassimos Thomas, the EC’s deputy director general for energy, told the conference: “It has always struck me that we have these discussions sector by sector, when I think the challenges are horizontal. There are common issues among power industry sectors, but there is no common forum.”

Welcoming Thomas to the podium, NEA director general William D. Magwood, IV, said financing of nuclear power plant projects “can’t be considered in the absence of well-functioning markets”.Thomas said: “We need to find a market way to solve this problem of how to marry by the end of the century renewables with nuclear, the only two low-carbon technologies, when the use of fossil fuels will have disappeared.”

He highlighted the EC’s latest Nuclear Illustrative Program (PINC), which was published last month and according to which investment of between €350 billion ($399 billion) and €450 billion will

be required over the next 35 years to maintain the European Union’s nuclear generating capacity at between 95 and 105 GWe. There are currently 129 nuclear power reactors in operation in the EU, with a combined generating capacity of 120 GWe, that together provide 27% of the bloc’s electricity. However, the EC forecasts that there will be a decline in EU nuclear capacity up to 2025 due to ageing reactors being retired and some member states ending or reducing their reliance on nuclear energy.

But wholesale electricity prices in the UK hit a five-year low of £36.76 per megawatt hour at the end of 2015, according to data compiled by market information provider ICIS. A mild winter and lower global commodity prices contributed to the bearish market sentiment. EDF Energy, which operates nuclear, gas and coal power stations across the UK, has yet to make a final investment decision on its Hinkley Point C project, at least in part due to low wholesale power prices that are curtailing its income as a power producer. Meanwhile the EU ETS price fell to a 20-month low in January, to less than €6/metric tonne, on low oil prices and the underlying problem in the system - too many allowances.

Thomas referred to the fact a surplus of emission allowances had built up in the EU ETS since 2009 and that the EC is addressing this through short- and long-term measures. The surplus is seen as largely due to the economic crisis - which reduced emissions more than anticipated - and high imports of international credits. This has led to lower carbon prices and thus a weaker incentive to reduce emissions. The surplus build-up was expected to slow from 2014, but not to decline significantly during phase 3 (2013-2020) from a level of around two billion allowances.

Tasks ahead

The EC’s new electricity market design initiative aims to improve the functioning

of the internal electricity market in order to allow power to move freely to where and when it is most needed, reap maximum benefits for society from cross-border competition and provide the right signals and incentives to drive the right investments, while fully integrating increasing shares of renewable energy. This should ensure that electricity is only dispatched based on market signals, Thomas said. Market coupling, where it is applied, has resulted in an increasing correlation between wholesale prices, but absolute price levels, even in adjacent markets, differ significantly and price spreads are not narrowing, he said. Further efforts are also needed to ensure sufficient interconnection between the grids and to promote long-term stability for investments in the energy sector as a whole, he said.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament and EU countries are preparing to debate the EC’s proposals for reforming the ETS after 2020. The EU took a first step to fix the system last year, creating the Market Stability Reserve to absorb surplus permits. The 2030 targets agreed by the European Council in October 2014 - for an at least 40% reduction in domestic greenhouse gas emissions, an at least 27% renewables share of energy consumption at the EU level and an at least 27% improvement in energy efficiency - reflect a high level of ambition, he said.

“This means that changes to the electricity system in favour of decarbonisation will have to continue and intensify,” he said.

Market design

The EC is committed to making its proposals on the new electricity market design by the end of this year. “This will be the most important, in my view, of the proposals that we will make when it comes to giving signals to investors in all energy sources. At the moment wholesale prices are extremely low,

Markets and the future of nuclear power

15 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

consumer prices have not followed and we have a number of factors that have not integrated properly in the electricity price. Once you decide how to redesign how electricity is priced, outside investors will be able to decide whether they invest in generation or not,” Thomas said.

The EC is still discussing the proposals with stakeholders, he said, and held a public consultation last year. “We are engaged with Member States, we are at the preparatory phase, but it does have some objectives on which we are already focusing. It has to provide a framework where markets will play an even more important role in the future than currently,” he said.

“We will make sure that government intervention overall in the energy sector is reduced. We have substantive government intervention in different forms - state aid to the energy sector in Europe has been going up by about €10 billion a year. It’s going to renewables, to coal and it has gone in the past to nuclear, but this is not a sustainable future to have an energy policy where state aid continues to go up and support different models. We have to rely more on market mechanisms,” he said.

“It’s a difficult challenge. Those who are very optimistic expect that our proposals will be so good that in the end the market will gradually sort out the problems and the new market design will survive until the end of the century. Those who are less optimistic say the market design will serve the next 20 years, but will then need to be reviewed again because technological and other developments will oblige us to redesign the system. But this is the key to the future of electricity in Europe and the key to the future of nuclear. How the electricity market is organised and how the electricity market is priced will define how financing will come to the nuclear sector,” he said.

“We need to promote certain markets in order to allow the integration between variable, intermittent sources and baseload sources. And you also need to devise instruments that will allow the short-term volatility to translate into

long-term investment signals. This is happening in other areas of the financial world where we have short-term liquidity and long-term financial signals. So we have to plan how the market will work and borrow instruments from other areas.”

One answer to market-related problems lies in what Thomas described as “regional solutions”. He explained: “We need to have capacity mechanisms for example that take into account more than one country. We need to have free flow of electricity across borders in order to address security of supply situations. One of the major political difficulties for us would be to make sure that these mechanisms are adopted and we see regional solutions in the electricity market design and in the pricing of electricity.”

Discussions on the new market design include an appreciation, he said, of the specific needs of the nuclear power sector. “There are the challenges the nuclear industry faces regarding the significant risks of high upfront capital costs, a long life cycle and safety regulations. So we have specifics in nuclear generation which have to be taken into account by investors and policy makers.”

Carbon

The historic agreement on tackling climate change, agreed at COP21 in Paris at the end of last year, is “a great opportunity for the world to reduce carbon emissions to improve the sustainability of the planet”, Thomas said.

“It provides a clear signal to investors that we have to move away from fossil fuels in the long term and to low-carbon resources. This provides a favourable framework for nuclear energy, but there is a division between experts and politicians. The experts are convinced that because of COP21 nuclear energy is going to provide the solution as a complement to renewables. But at the same time everybody in the industry understands and agrees that there has been somehow a failure to get an

explicit acknowledgement in COP21 and other policy fora that nuclear is an indispensable part of the solution,” he told delegates.

Public opinion “remains divided”, he said, “and that’s why politicians are not collectively explicit about this”.

“So, technically and from the experts’ perspective, nuclear is part of the low-carbon future of Europe and the world, but this is not as explicit as one would like to see in order to have the right investment signals and in order to get outside investors to have confidence in this long-term vision. This is something that still hasn’t been addressed.”

He added: “We have a lot of good things going for us in the European Union when we talk about an investment framework for nuclear energy.”

The first advantage Thomas highlighted was the Energy Union Strategy Framework, which was adopted last year to bring about the transition to a low-carbon, secure and competitive economy. A specific minimum interconnection target has been set for electricity at 10% of the installed electricity production capacity of Member States, which should be achieved by 2020. The necessary measures to achieve this target are set out in the Commission Communication presented with the Framework. The Commission will report this year on the necessary measures to reach a 15% target by 2030.

The Framework “allows each Member State to have their own energy mix provided that they move towards a low-carbon future”, he said. “It is true that in the short term it has renewable energy targets. Our long-term policy is technology neutral, but in the short term we do have barriers around specific renewable energy targets. This is 20% by 2020, 27% by 2030 and 40-50% by the middle of the century.”

The second advantage is the Commission’s endeavour to improve market pricing for emissions in the EU ETS. The system “hasn’t worked very well recently, but we are addressing this

16 Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.

in a policy way with commitments and with a reform of the system post-2020,” he said.

The combination of a Market Stability Reserve and reform of the EU ETS is going to provide, by the middle of the century, a functioning ETS market and pricing of emissions that are going to be supportive to long-term investments, he said.

Establishing the Reserve as of 2018 aims to address the current surplus of allowances and improve the system’s resilience to major shocks by adjusting the supply of allowances to be auctioned. It will operate entirely according to pre-defined rules which would leave no discretion to the Commission or Member States in its implementation.

Other changes

Thomas also highlighted positive changes to the regulatory environment. The EC “is at the start of a new period that provides some certainty to investors” in nuclear power, he said. Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, in March 2011, the EC has adopted new nuclear safety and radioactive waste Directives, for example. “So the framework is new and being implemented now and this provides regulatory stability,” he said.This is important to addressing the financial challenge that the European nuclear industry faces, he said. Meeting budget and schedule targets on nuclear power plant projects “has not been as good as demonstrated at the world level”, he said. “If you look at the weighted average cost of capital when you are late in construction by seven to ten years, you have doubled the financing cost.”

If developers do not achieve efficiency in moving from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) to end-of-a-kind (NOAK) technology, they face “significant price disadvantages”, he said. “Technology has been improving but the cost of FOAK has been going up,” he added. A comparison between the previous PINC, published in 2007, and the latest version indicate a 50% increase in the cost of FOAK, he said. “The only way to compensate for this is

to move quickly and efficiently from a FOAK to a NOAK situation, saving around 20% of the cost,” he said.

There is also need for a competitive supply chain in order to ensure efficiencies in time and cost. “One of the initiatives we are prepared to follow up as a result of the PINC is to work with industry to increase standardisation in the supply chain. We have new technologies, we have new suppliers and it is important that the industry engages in the standardisation in order to become cost-competitive,” he said.

The EC is also working together with European regulators to bring about more cooperation in licensing. “This is a very long process and every national regulator in Europe and worldwide has its own standards. There is no significant cross-fertilisation of knowledge, particularly now that we have to move from FOAK to NOAK between the different regulators. And therefore we think that’s where significant efficiencies can be achieved,” he said.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

Vancouver Commodity ForumJune 14, 2016 at Hyatt Regency Hotel in Vancouver

Click Here to Register

Exhibitors:

92 Resources Corp. (TSX.V: NTY; Frankfurt: R9G2)ALX Uranium Corp. (TSX.V: AL; Frankfurt: 6LLN)Arctic Star Exploration Corp. (TSX.V: ADD; Frankfurt: 82A)Belmont Resources Inc. (TSX.V: BEA; Frankfurt: L3L1)Commerce Resources Corp. (TSX.V: CCE; Frankfurt: D7H)Canadian Zeolite Corp. (TSX.V: CNZ ; Frankfurt: ZEON)Copper North Mining Corp. (TSX.V: COL; Frankfurt: 79M)Dunnedin Ventures Inc. (TSX.V: DVI; Frankfurt: 5DD)Electra Stone Ltd. (TSX.V: ELT; Frankfurt: 44E1)Equitas Resources Corp. (TSX.V: EQT; Frankfurt: T6UN)MGX Minerals Inc. (CSE: XMG; Frankfurt: 1MG)Group Ten Metals Inc. (TSX.V: PGE; Frankfurt: 5D31)Nickel One Resources Inc. (TSX.V: NNN; Frankfurt: 7N1)Scandium Int. Mining Corp. (TSX.V: SCY; Frankfurt: 0E6)True Leaf Medicine Int. Ltd. (CSE: MJ; Frankfurt: TLA)Umbral Energy Corp. (CSE: UMB; Frankfurt: 2UE)Vatic Ventures Corp. (TSX.V: VCV.H)Voltaic Minerals Corp. (TSX.V: VLT; Frankfurt: 2P61)Zimtu Capital Corp. (TSX.V: ZC; Frankfurt: ZCT1)

Program:

12:00 pm: Exhibitor floor opens

1:00 pm: Welcome from Dave Hodge, President of Zimtu Capital Corp.

1:10 pm: Participant company introductions by Dave Hodge and Sven Olsson

1:30 pm: Joe Martin (Cambridge House International): The difference between exploration and mining, and the importance of Vancouver

1:40 pm: John Kaiser (Kaiser Researcb Online): “Criticality of Supply” and how it effects world prices, demand, and the ability to use that to your advantage in the market place

2:10 pm: BREAK - Networking with refreshments

3:00 pm: Stephan Bogner (Rockstone Research): How European markets impact Canadian markets

3:20 pm: John Hykawy (Stormcrow Capital): Demand & Pricing for lithium, cobalt and other battery materials

3:50 pm: Chris Berry (Disruptive Discoveries Journal): The future of lithium

4:30-6:00 pm: Networking Session with refreshments

18

Disclaimer and Information on Forward Looking Statements:All statements in this report, other than statements of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements. Much of this report is comprised of state-ments of projection. Statements in this re-port that are forward looking include that uranium and metal prices are expected to rebound; that ALX Uranium Corp. or its partner(s) can and will start exploring fur-ther; that exploration has or will discover a mineable deposit; that the company can raise sufficient funds for exploration or development; that any of the mentioned mineralization indications or estimates are valid or economic. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-look-ing statements. Risks and uncertainties respecting mineral exploration and mining companies are generally disclosed in the annual financial or other filing documents of ALX Uranium Corp. and similar com-panies as filed with the relevant securities commissions, and should be reviewed by any reader of this report. In addition, with respect to ALX Uranium Corp., a number of risks relate to any statement of projection or forward statements, including among other risks: the receipt of all necessary approvals and permits; the ability to con-clude a transaction to start or continue de-velopment; uncertainty of future uranium and metal prices, capital expenditures and other costs; financings and additional cap-ital requirements for exploration, develop-ment, construction, and operating of a mine; the receipt in a timely fashion of fur-ther permitting for its legislative, political, social or economic developments in the jurisdictions in which ALX Uranium Corp.carries on business; operating or technic-al difficulties in connection with mining or development activities; the ability to keep key employees, joint-venture part-ner(s), and operations financed. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Ac-cordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Rockstone and the author of this report do not undertake any obligation to up-date any statements made in this report.

Disclosure of Interest and Advisory Cautions: Nothing in this report should be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities mentioned. Rockstone, its owners and the author of this report are not registered broker-dealers or financial advisors. Before investing in any securities, you should consult with your financial advisor and a registered broker-dealer. Never make an investment based solely on what you read in an online or printed report, including Rockstone’s report, especially if the investment involves a small, thinly-traded company that isn’t well known. The author of this report is paid by Zimtu Capital Corp., a TSX Venture Exchange listed investment company. Part of the author’s responsibilities at Zimtu Capital Corp. is to research and report on companies in which Zimtu Capital Corp. has an investment. So while the author of this report is not paid directly by ALX Uranium Corp., the author’s employer Zimtu Capital Corp. will benefit from appreciation of ALX Uranium Corp.’s stock price. In addition, the author owns shares of ALX Uranium Corp. and would also benefit from volume and price appreciation of its stock. Thus, multiple conflicts of interests exist. Therefore, the information provided herewithin should not be construed as an financial analysis or investment advise but as advertisment. The author’s views and opinions regarding the companies featured in reports are his own views and are based on information that he has researched independently and has received, which the author assumes to be reliable. Rockstone and the author of this report do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any content of this report, nor its fitness for any particular purpose. ALX Uranium Corp. has not reviewed this report prior to publication. Lastly, the author does not guarantee that any of the companies mentioned will perform as expected, and any comparisons made to other companies may not be valid or come into effect. Please read the entire Disclaimer carefully. If you do not agree to all of the Disclaimer, do not access this website or any of its pages including this report in form of a PDF. By using this website and/or report, and whether or not you actually read the Disclaimer, you are deemed to have accepted it. Information provided is educational and general in nature.

Analyst Profile & Contact:

Stephan Bogner (Dipl. Kfm., FH)Mining Analyst Rockstone Research 8050 Zurich, SwitzerlandPhone: +41-44-5862323Email: sb@rockstone-research.com

Stephan Bogner studied at the International School of Management (Dortmund, Germany), the European Business School (London,

UK) and the University of Queensland (Brisbane, Australia).

Under supervision of Prof. Dr. Hans J. Bocker, Stephan completed his diploma thesis (“Gold In A Macroeconomic Context With Special Consideration Of The Price Formation Process”) in 2002. A year later, he marketed and translated into German Ferdinand Lips‘ bestseller (“Gold Wars“). After working in Dubai for 5 years, he now lives in Switzerland and is the CEO of Elementum International AG specialized in duty-free storage of gold and silver bullion in a high-security vaulting facility within the St. Gotthard Mountain Massif in central Switzerland.

Rockstone is a research house specialized in the analysis and valuation of capital markets and publicly listed companies. The focus is set on exploration, development, and production of resource deposits. Through the publication of general geological basic knowledge, the individual research reports receive a background in order for the reader to be inspired to conduct further due diligence. All research from our house is being made accessible to private and institutional investors free of charge, whereas it is always to be construed as non-binding educational research and is addressed solely to a readership that is knowledgeable about the risks, experienced with stock markets, and acting on one’s own responsibility.

For more information and sign-up for free newsletter, please visit: www.rockstone-research.com

Research #10 | ALX Uranium Corp.