Optimised Toro Energy scoping study powers up WA uranium economics
Toro Energy has supercharged the project financials for its Lake Maitland uranium project near Wiluna in Western Australia, unveiling an updated scoping study forecasting a low-cost, long-life mining operation.
The latest numbers paint an encouraging picture for a standalone operation, improving its historic net present value (NPV) by 9 per cent to a hefty $908 million while slashing the project's payback period to 1.5 years.
The updated study was driven by a refined resource estimate and re-optimised pit design, allowing for a robust internal rate of return of 56 per cent on an estimated capital expenditure of $298M.
The study was completed by mining experts at SRK Consulting and metallurgical specialists Strategic Metallurgy to leverage a strong uranium price of US$85 (A$130) per pound and a vanadium price of US$5.67 per pound.
The assumptions align with what the company believes is a bullish projected uranium market, buoyed by supply shortages, geopolitical tensions and growing demands for clean nuclear energy.
Toro says its Lake Maitland project is forecast to produce 1.3 million pounds (Mlbs) of uranium and 0.75Mlbs of vanadium annually during a 16.3-year mine life, totalling a substantial 22Mlbs of uranium and 12.3Mlbs of vanadium.
The company says its operating costs are a standout, with C1 cash costs pegged at just US$15.46 per pound of uranium in the first five years, rising to US$22.67 over the life of mine. The all-in sustaining costs are equally competitive at US$20.68 per pound initially and US$28.37 over the life of the mine.
Total EBITDA is projected at a huge $2.33 billion, with undiscounted pre-tax cash flows of $1.96B, averaging $120M annually.
The study builds on a re-estimated resource at Lake Maitland of 33.3Mt grading 403 parts per million (ppm) uranium oxide for 29.6Mlbs contained uranium and 50Mt at 285ppm vanadium oxide for 31.4Mlbs contained vanadium.
The shallow hosted, clay-dominated resource contains both uranium and vanadium, with a strong 83 per cent correlation between the two, offering a strategic by-product bonus.
Toro's mining plan is straightforward, using conventional open-pit truck-and-shovel methods with minimal drill-and-blast due to the unconsolidated clay host. The high-grade core will be mined first to maximise early cash flows.
The company says it is confident it can secure traditional debt and equity financing thanks to its partnership with Japanese giants JAURD and ITOCHU, which could earn a 35 per cent stake in Lake Maitland for $60M upon a positive definitive feasibility study.
Lake Maitland's low costs and high margins make it stand out in a tightening market, should ancient regulations around uranium mining in WA ever be lifted.
With the scoping study complete and feasibility work on the horizon, Toro is charging towards project funding as it navigates political winds and, no doubt, hoping its Lake Maitland can cornerstone WA's uranium revival.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
'We will determine our defence budget': PM defies US calls to increase defence spending
'We will determine our defence budget': PM defies US calls to increase defence spending Published 2 June 2025, 3:25 am Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has resisted calls made by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in Singapore to boost Australia's defence spending, ahead of his highly anticipated first face-to-face meeting with US President Donald Trump later this month. It comes amid backlash against the US doubling tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Dating site accused of catfishing users with 'free' use
A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress. A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress. A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress. A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress.
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Dating site accused of catfishing users with 'free' use
A popular dating website is accused of catfishing users with misleading claims about costs to use its service and cancellation options. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission alleges US-based eHarmony breached consumer law by misleading customers about pricing, renewal, and the duration of memberships since at least 2019. People who sign up for free subscriptions can complete an 80-question compatibility quiz, but can only see blurred profile photos of other members and cannot engage in ongoing communication, the ACCC claims. The only options free members have are liking other profiles, receiving and sending a single reply to a premium member, using the "icebreaker feature", and sending a virtual smiley. This is despite the company advertising itself as a "free dating" platform across five of its webpages, ACCC barrister Oren Bigos told the Federal Court. He referred to headings on eHarmony's website which read, "Free dating site for Australian singles", "free dating site in Australia, eHarmony is your best choice", "Go beyond simple swipes with our free dating experience", and an orange button which read "join free today". "What was available free of charge on the basic membership is a very limited service and ability to interact with other members," Dr Bigos said on Monday. eHarmony's barrister Michael Hodge said of those six pages relied by the ACCC, four were different versions of the same page. When customers signed up for premium memberships, they are given a false impression that the paid period is for six, 12 or 24 months, the watchdog alleges. Unsuspecting users were caught off guard when their subscriptions automatically renewed at the end of their period with no reminders and often at hefty costs since sign-up discounts were not carried over. "Once auto-renewal happens, users are stuck with that amount. They can't apply for refund," Dr Bigos said. He claims the site's subscription page did not mention auto-renewal and that it only appears in small grey text towards the end. But Mr Hodge referred to evidence showing four out of every five subscribers turn off auto-renewal, inferring users read and understood the terms before they signed up. The ACCC alleges eHarmony failed to display accurate minimum and total prices during the purchase process by failing to inform consumers of a mandatory additional fee if they wanted to pay monthly. Users were allegedly charged an extra $3 on top of the advertised price when they opted to pay on a monthly basis. "It is not possible to purchase a 12-month plan and pay only the advertised (price) each month because an additional mandatory fee is charged if a consumer chooses to pay monthly," Dr Bigos said. The ACCC also said the dating site failed to display a single total price users could expect to pay should they sign up, rather they only specified a monthly charge. eHarmony is also accused of misleading customers about their ability to sign up for and cancel premium subscriptions within one month, through headlines reading, "try before you buy" and "you might want to start off with a one month subscription to give us a try". Dr Bigos said the service only offered six, 12 and 24-month options and it was not possible for consumers cancel after one month. Mr Hodge contends information on the site's other pages makes clear what the possible subscription options are and that cancellation refers to any account with eHarmony. The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs and consumer redress.
