Sprott seems to have started his trust as a publicly traded vehicle at the end of a third Elliott wave, not long before the start of an Elliott fourth wave (sideways triangle). It's now entering the fifth of five waves up. Who knows how long that wave will last -- perhaps a year. That might or might not be the end of this new bull market. Personally, I doubt it. Price retracement with the 2000s bull market gives it a lot more runway to go.
I've heard the huge bull case is nations shifting over to nuclear power, especially given what's going on in energy markets. That's possible, but what's the time frame, and can prices dip with broader commodities before then?
Please interview Marin Katusa about the story around Uranium Energy Corp (UEC). UEC has more permitted uranium pounds than any other US company. And please ask why US keeps buying uranium from Rosatom (Founder: Putin)...
Sprott is taking advantage of the energy “crisis”. Nuclear will/must play a larger role in the future of energy thx to political pressure brought on by the carbon-free narrative, the current war, green new deal initiative etc. Approximately 70 million lb shortfall in 2022. War is only accelerating the inevitable. At the very least, this is an opportunity worth considering. Doomberg Knows…
Another’s man’s garbage will be another’s pearl, as we are seeing from the use of the earths fossil fuels, (Waste trees and plants), recycled rubber, wood and steel from dumps, pyrolysis of tires, wood and organic garbage, etc. Plants are the biggest beneficiary of the earths natural carbon cycle increase as a non toxic friendly fertilizer. Heck we breathe out 40,000 ppm of CO2 and politicians and activists are afraid of 400 ppm of invisible non warming CO2
A serious question, with major implications for the "invest in uranium space": What about fusion? From my research, my current hypothesis is that safe, commercially viable fusion is not possible. (It is a very complicated engineering problem, with a massive explosive downside). If this hypothesis is proven wrong, uranium (and oil, gas) investments will be down hard. Thoughts?
I find it quizzical that in all the suddenly revived talk about nuclear as an alternative solution to the emerging energy supply problems ahead, 2 key issues that have always been issues in the nuclear power debate seem to be ignored in the current hoo ha:
First, I don't see how the politics of nuclear power have changed lately. Anyone want a nuclear power station built in their area? Didn't think so.
So the politicians can talk all they want about it, I can’t see it actually get off the ground. I expect the politicians will blow hot area about it in the immediate term, but more to be “seen to be doing something”, than actually achieving anything practically viable.
“Reactivating” mothballed plants may be viable, as in the case of Germany, but in other countries the “not in my neighbourhood” rule at the voting booth will determine any actual action (or lack thereof).
Of course, soaring energy prices may change that political dynamic. How would you feel about a new nuclear power plant if it wasn’t in your neighbourhood & your power bill was 3 times higher a year from now & power price driven inflation was 5%+ on everything from food to clothing to consumer goods? You’d do the math. And so will the politicians – they’ll give up the votes lost in the areas affected, if they can win the votes elsewhere.
Secondly, is nuclear really "green" energy solution in practicality? Yes, nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, but is does produce nuclear radioactive waste. My memory is that the nuclear waste issue is a real & significant one. Has that problem just magically gone away now?
So the talk about a “nuclear solution” just seems to me to be more “kicking the can down the road” on an important environmental issue. Well, that does fit perfectly with the political dynamics of the day, so I expect the politicians will try & latch onto that talking point with enthusiasm.
Sadly, I can see us dealing with a nuclear waste crisis 10 years from now. So when we talk about building a new nuclear power station, lets also talk about building a new nuclear waste disposal site. Lets see how voters like a nuclear waste plant in their neighbourhood.
To: Just The Facts: Your well-thought-out commentary on the current prospects for nuclear energy (NE), deserves further reflection. May I add my grain of salt.
1. Has the politics of NE changed? Politics has always been the key to unlock NE and more so today with multiple stakeholders wielding power of veto. Something has changed on the ground but what does that mean for politicians? “Front Page” reality of the Texas Blackout, World Energy Crisis and Ukraine war has pushed electricity reliability & cost and the big sleeper: energy independence (E/I) to the forefront in the minds of top politicians on par with decarbonization & environmental concerns. So what is new?
Social media is now playing a key role in combatting dis-information before it can run rampant. It is true that NE is more popular with the people than with politicians. Expediency rules and we can at least, trust politicians to follow the wind. There is safety in numbers and if the recent stream of phase-outs of nuclear phase-outs (and phase-downs) continues, politicians now have the political will and “cover” from the mainstream i.e., polls. Support in the West, continues to grow with the majority of Americans and Europeans (including Germans!) strongly or generally supporting NE. The gauge of NE support will be the increase in Plants under Construction. As of March 2022, there were 440 NPPs operating with 55 under construction in 19 countries. De-growth of NE is over and a ramp-up can be expected. France’s recent presidential polling indicates that pro-nuclear expansion candidates received 72% of the popular vote. In addition to the numerous cancellations of Phase-outs (Belgium, S. Korea, Japan, etc.), the UK and Holland just announced major NE build programs.
Energy Independence has burst back onto the geo-political scene with a vengeance. Momentum will continue to build as even the globalists admit that Ukraine would not have been invaded by Putin's war machine without Europe’s 1B euros/day FF purchases, and moreover, Germany would not also still be sending Putin 0.5 B euros/day, 2 months into the war. People now see the ramifications of the current crisis: 1. Net Zero can never be achieved without a practical transition plan. A leap of faith on 100% RE won’t cut it. Resorting to “Hijacking” of Natural Gas supplies on the open ocean for emergency electricity is not energy policy. Even worse, burning Natural Gas for electricity generation to the detriment of other civilizational priorities such as fertilizers and industrial staples, is a recipe for global disaster that is now unfolding.
Investment cycles must play out. Global energy markets will remain roiled and suffer from high prices & volatility until at least 2025. In the interim high electricity prices, food scarcities and critical supply chains squeezes will foment unrest and keep the focus on energy. It appears that each generation must re-learn the true cost of sacrificing Energy Independence & diversity of supply. Germany sank to 30% E/I over the last decade in pursuit of Energiewende. By contrast, Japan and France took different paths but respected E/I’s key principles. Japan also sacrificed NE but deployed a successful FF diversification strategy until recent world events forced a NE reset. France with its 70% electricity supply from its nuclear fleet, has achieved an E/I about twice as high as Germany and avoided outright Nat Gas dependence on Putin. It is ironic that Mr Renewables himself, Elon Musk publicly called Germany out to take immediate action to re-start NE and take back its independence from Putin. His words are prescient: “A Renewables system cannot be ramped up fast”.
NIMBY? An impressive and growing list of Environmentalists are now advocating for NE as the necessary solution and complementary partner to RE. They see NIMBY working to NE’s advantage given its small footprint i.e., much less of a land grab & existing infrastructure, compared to Renewables. Germany ‘s Energiewende plan to scale-up RE is now stalled by the growing NIMBY backlash from rural voters. Global Installation of wind turbines has plateaued in recent years. Whereas surveys around the West’s NPPs (and coal plants) repeatedly show high support for NE and a strong desire for new build.
2. Is Nuclear a green solution in practicality? N¬¬ot so long ago, over 75% of Europeans believed that NE generated GHGs. The recent EU Green Taxonomy battle reached a favourable conclusion for NE with the EU Commission declaring support for NE on the basis that it is essential for the Net-Zero goal AND it does no more harm to the environment than Renewables. The disinformation battle is being won and this speaks to NE burnishing its green credentials in the eyes of the public.
The nuclear waste issue has long been a favourite and effective cudgel of detractors. Yet after a short discussion with most people, invariably a certain re-balancing occurs. They are surprised to learn that hospitals generate comparable quantities of medium & low-level radioactive waste. I did not know 40% of hospital ER procedures are dependent on radiation and nuclear plants. They are even more surprised when they learn modern countries produce 200Kg of Toxic waste (chemicals, etc.) per capita per year. By comparison, France (70% reliant on NE) generates only 1 gram p.c./yr. of spent fuel waste. Nuclear waste is managed to high standards, unlike other industries such as RE. While some will complain it is preposterous to compare waste from wind and solar infrastructure to coal and nuclear waste as far as toxicity goes the reality is otherwise when spent fuel has aged 400 years. There is no reason to disparage solar and wind, but people are recognizing the relatively more voluminous turbine blades and PV panels will exact a toll on people and the environment as the heavy metals inevitably leach out from landfills.
A nuclear waste plant is not for every neighbourhood, but it is safe to say that the tide has been turned with the successful siting and placing into service of nuclear waste facilities in Finland & Sweden. Ontalo, Finland is on the map with the support of the Finnish Greens and has demonstrated the power of the consent-based process. Innovation is gearing up to play a major role as numerous waste management solutions have been demonstrated such as Transmutation, Waste Burning reactors, Engineered Lateral wellbores, etc. They will arrive over the next decade as SMRs and advanced reactors come online.
In the final analysis, Nuclear Energy is just one more tool in the toolbox that will only be ignored at our collective peril.
It is bad that an interview like this is even needed to explain the opaque details of the uranium trust. Shouldn't this clear explanation be posted on Sprott's web site? I'm not a shareholder but I would find tihs all offensive if I were. As it is, it is a reason to avoid Sprott products. I've had other issues with Sprott.
I'm not an expert on the nuclear physics of closed-end funds, but if they keep growing at this pace, could their AUM become supercritical? I feel like that could lead to an exponentially accelerating drop in NAV...
This is a Canadian trust. Does the DPA cover off Canada?
Notably, John C has said that they would potentially sell the uranium pending a shareholder vote. The value of the current pounds held is a drop in the bucket relative to the national debt.
That’s an excellent point. The article does note, however, that SPUT is in the process of acquiring a NYSE-listed ETF, so that SPUTs shares can trade on the NYSE, like its parent company Sprott, Inc. Not sure what type of DPA jurisdiction that would invoke, but even if it does, the DPA does not authorize confiscation; it would just compel greater production from domestic producers to compete and control prices.
Perhaps more troubling however is the following 08/21 uranium recommendation (published in the Federal Register) by the Commerce Secretary to ban imports of uranium sourced from many countries:
“Due to the threat to the national security, as defined in Section 232, from excessive uranium imports, the Secretary recommends that the President take immediate action by adjusting the level of these imports through the implementation of an import waiver to achieve a phased-in reduction of uranium imports. The reduction in imports of uranium should be sufficient to enable U.S. producers to recapture and sustain a market share of U.S. uranium consumption that will allow for financial viability, and would enable the maintenance of a skilled workforce and the production capacity and uranium output needed for national defense and critical infrastructure requirements. The reduction imposed should be sufficient to enable U.S. producers to eventually supply 25 percent of U.S. utilities' uranium needs based on 2018 U.S. U308 concentrate annual consumption requirements.”
So if SPUT sourced cheap uranium from say RU to sell to US power generators (which are considered vital to US security in the above Dept. of Commerce recommendation), would that sale be a prohibited import, even if SPUT is Canadian?
It seems like these pending rules would be already reflected in the SPUT share price, and I really am just looking to learn not invest or contradict anyone, so any responses would be academically appreciated, since I’m obviously way out of my lane.
They absolutely should. This is nothing but another shameless capitalist raising available billions from investors to buy up all of a strategic mineral and remove it from the market. Nothing different than cornering a market. Price increases in nuclear fuel costs for a power plant just end up being passed down to consumers via higher electricity prices, while Sprott profits. End this nonsense.
Seems as if the full transcript should be offered to all paid subscribers.
Just a thought...
Note: The full transcript of our conversation with Ciampaglia – including his reaction to the AMC/Hycroft Mining deal and the mechanics of physical redemption in PHYS and PSLV – as well as our thoughts on the potential investment consequences of the consummation of the URNM deal, will be emailed to Doomberg Pro members tomorrow, Sunday, April 10th.
Yes that’s exactly what they’re doing. And since there is no mechanism to dispose of their uranium, what happens when the tide goes out and everyone wants to cash out? WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM…? Not only do they corner the market, they are effectively a Ponzy scheme because they buy an asset that they can’t sell! Investors are paying good money to put perfectly good uranium ore out of circulation
Did you guys notice Russia displaying to the world the vulnerability of having nuclear power plants as wartime potential shields/targets in Ukraine? That was not subtle or unintentional. That will remain as an existential issue and threat to nuclear power going forward. We’re seeing that former rules based tactics of war are off the table with US confiscation of Sovereign reserves, Hypersonic missiles, threats of Nukes, Killer drones, Cyber warfare, etc….Nothing is off the table and game theory favors unintended consequences and therefore the unthinkable is no more.
It’s a valid point. However, there are more hydro-electric dams scattered around the world/US with WAY more potential for massive devastation/immediate loss of human life if hit during a kinetic war than nuclear plants (although a nuclear plant attack is mind-numbingly unfathomable).
True. So many diabolical ways available these days to cause death and destruction and we haven’t even mentioned biological. Which makes one wonder why we escalate instead of negotiate? The US, Russia and China must especially learn to live peacefully together for all our sakes. Power must be shared in this new paradigm to prevent conflict but we’re not liking that concept.
No joke - I was over the shoulder for the whole process (will next be heading to court for redress). Fired for cause. At the end, they offered the opportunity to resign with a slap in the face severance. 2 years in, and I still can't believe this is happening in Canada, and so many don't seem to care.
Thanks for this great article. Big fan of Sprott for a little over a year now. In true amateur fashion I got into SRUUF at the first spike to 14 - FOMO, it’s a biatch - but then avg down in 11s. I am a believer that uranium could be a generational opportunity. Keeping an eye out for the miners etf and NYSE listing. You guys are alright.
Love the work Doom. Thanks for the heads up on the uranium, does Sprott see any disruption with Thorium reactors long term or have any plans to disrupt any of the other parts of the metals exchange after the nickle market blow up?
Will save up for the sub. Probably be a year. Working for oneself cut my budget, and fifth child on the way, means it takes a little work to squeeze this one on the coop! I'll follow on Twitter, and may even start a Twitter account back up after I deleted my old one just to follow your team.
Sprott seems to have started his trust as a publicly traded vehicle at the end of a third Elliott wave, not long before the start of an Elliott fourth wave (sideways triangle). It's now entering the fifth of five waves up. Who knows how long that wave will last -- perhaps a year. That might or might not be the end of this new bull market. Personally, I doubt it. Price retracement with the 2000s bull market gives it a lot more runway to go.
I've heard the huge bull case is nations shifting over to nuclear power, especially given what's going on in energy markets. That's possible, but what's the time frame, and can prices dip with broader commodities before then?
Please interview Marin Katusa about the story around Uranium Energy Corp (UEC). UEC has more permitted uranium pounds than any other US company. And please ask why US keeps buying uranium from Rosatom (Founder: Putin)...
Sprott is taking advantage of the energy “crisis”. Nuclear will/must play a larger role in the future of energy thx to political pressure brought on by the carbon-free narrative, the current war, green new deal initiative etc. Approximately 70 million lb shortfall in 2022. War is only accelerating the inevitable. At the very least, this is an opportunity worth considering. Doomberg Knows…
Another’s man’s garbage will be another’s pearl, as we are seeing from the use of the earths fossil fuels, (Waste trees and plants), recycled rubber, wood and steel from dumps, pyrolysis of tires, wood and organic garbage, etc. Plants are the biggest beneficiary of the earths natural carbon cycle increase as a non toxic friendly fertilizer. Heck we breathe out 40,000 ppm of CO2 and politicians and activists are afraid of 400 ppm of invisible non warming CO2
A serious question, with major implications for the "invest in uranium space": What about fusion? From my research, my current hypothesis is that safe, commercially viable fusion is not possible. (It is a very complicated engineering problem, with a massive explosive downside). If this hypothesis is proven wrong, uranium (and oil, gas) investments will be down hard. Thoughts?
I find it quizzical that in all the suddenly revived talk about nuclear as an alternative solution to the emerging energy supply problems ahead, 2 key issues that have always been issues in the nuclear power debate seem to be ignored in the current hoo ha:
First, I don't see how the politics of nuclear power have changed lately. Anyone want a nuclear power station built in their area? Didn't think so.
So the politicians can talk all they want about it, I can’t see it actually get off the ground. I expect the politicians will blow hot area about it in the immediate term, but more to be “seen to be doing something”, than actually achieving anything practically viable.
“Reactivating” mothballed plants may be viable, as in the case of Germany, but in other countries the “not in my neighbourhood” rule at the voting booth will determine any actual action (or lack thereof).
Of course, soaring energy prices may change that political dynamic. How would you feel about a new nuclear power plant if it wasn’t in your neighbourhood & your power bill was 3 times higher a year from now & power price driven inflation was 5%+ on everything from food to clothing to consumer goods? You’d do the math. And so will the politicians – they’ll give up the votes lost in the areas affected, if they can win the votes elsewhere.
Secondly, is nuclear really "green" energy solution in practicality? Yes, nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, but is does produce nuclear radioactive waste. My memory is that the nuclear waste issue is a real & significant one. Has that problem just magically gone away now?
So the talk about a “nuclear solution” just seems to me to be more “kicking the can down the road” on an important environmental issue. Well, that does fit perfectly with the political dynamics of the day, so I expect the politicians will try & latch onto that talking point with enthusiasm.
Sadly, I can see us dealing with a nuclear waste crisis 10 years from now. So when we talk about building a new nuclear power station, lets also talk about building a new nuclear waste disposal site. Lets see how voters like a nuclear waste plant in their neighbourhood.
To: Just The Facts: Your well-thought-out commentary on the current prospects for nuclear energy (NE), deserves further reflection. May I add my grain of salt.
1. Has the politics of NE changed? Politics has always been the key to unlock NE and more so today with multiple stakeholders wielding power of veto. Something has changed on the ground but what does that mean for politicians? “Front Page” reality of the Texas Blackout, World Energy Crisis and Ukraine war has pushed electricity reliability & cost and the big sleeper: energy independence (E/I) to the forefront in the minds of top politicians on par with decarbonization & environmental concerns. So what is new?
Social media is now playing a key role in combatting dis-information before it can run rampant. It is true that NE is more popular with the people than with politicians. Expediency rules and we can at least, trust politicians to follow the wind. There is safety in numbers and if the recent stream of phase-outs of nuclear phase-outs (and phase-downs) continues, politicians now have the political will and “cover” from the mainstream i.e., polls. Support in the West, continues to grow with the majority of Americans and Europeans (including Germans!) strongly or generally supporting NE. The gauge of NE support will be the increase in Plants under Construction. As of March 2022, there were 440 NPPs operating with 55 under construction in 19 countries. De-growth of NE is over and a ramp-up can be expected. France’s recent presidential polling indicates that pro-nuclear expansion candidates received 72% of the popular vote. In addition to the numerous cancellations of Phase-outs (Belgium, S. Korea, Japan, etc.), the UK and Holland just announced major NE build programs.
Energy Independence has burst back onto the geo-political scene with a vengeance. Momentum will continue to build as even the globalists admit that Ukraine would not have been invaded by Putin's war machine without Europe’s 1B euros/day FF purchases, and moreover, Germany would not also still be sending Putin 0.5 B euros/day, 2 months into the war. People now see the ramifications of the current crisis: 1. Net Zero can never be achieved without a practical transition plan. A leap of faith on 100% RE won’t cut it. Resorting to “Hijacking” of Natural Gas supplies on the open ocean for emergency electricity is not energy policy. Even worse, burning Natural Gas for electricity generation to the detriment of other civilizational priorities such as fertilizers and industrial staples, is a recipe for global disaster that is now unfolding.
Investment cycles must play out. Global energy markets will remain roiled and suffer from high prices & volatility until at least 2025. In the interim high electricity prices, food scarcities and critical supply chains squeezes will foment unrest and keep the focus on energy. It appears that each generation must re-learn the true cost of sacrificing Energy Independence & diversity of supply. Germany sank to 30% E/I over the last decade in pursuit of Energiewende. By contrast, Japan and France took different paths but respected E/I’s key principles. Japan also sacrificed NE but deployed a successful FF diversification strategy until recent world events forced a NE reset. France with its 70% electricity supply from its nuclear fleet, has achieved an E/I about twice as high as Germany and avoided outright Nat Gas dependence on Putin. It is ironic that Mr Renewables himself, Elon Musk publicly called Germany out to take immediate action to re-start NE and take back its independence from Putin. His words are prescient: “A Renewables system cannot be ramped up fast”.
NIMBY? An impressive and growing list of Environmentalists are now advocating for NE as the necessary solution and complementary partner to RE. They see NIMBY working to NE’s advantage given its small footprint i.e., much less of a land grab & existing infrastructure, compared to Renewables. Germany ‘s Energiewende plan to scale-up RE is now stalled by the growing NIMBY backlash from rural voters. Global Installation of wind turbines has plateaued in recent years. Whereas surveys around the West’s NPPs (and coal plants) repeatedly show high support for NE and a strong desire for new build.
2. Is Nuclear a green solution in practicality? N¬¬ot so long ago, over 75% of Europeans believed that NE generated GHGs. The recent EU Green Taxonomy battle reached a favourable conclusion for NE with the EU Commission declaring support for NE on the basis that it is essential for the Net-Zero goal AND it does no more harm to the environment than Renewables. The disinformation battle is being won and this speaks to NE burnishing its green credentials in the eyes of the public.
The nuclear waste issue has long been a favourite and effective cudgel of detractors. Yet after a short discussion with most people, invariably a certain re-balancing occurs. They are surprised to learn that hospitals generate comparable quantities of medium & low-level radioactive waste. I did not know 40% of hospital ER procedures are dependent on radiation and nuclear plants. They are even more surprised when they learn modern countries produce 200Kg of Toxic waste (chemicals, etc.) per capita per year. By comparison, France (70% reliant on NE) generates only 1 gram p.c./yr. of spent fuel waste. Nuclear waste is managed to high standards, unlike other industries such as RE. While some will complain it is preposterous to compare waste from wind and solar infrastructure to coal and nuclear waste as far as toxicity goes the reality is otherwise when spent fuel has aged 400 years. There is no reason to disparage solar and wind, but people are recognizing the relatively more voluminous turbine blades and PV panels will exact a toll on people and the environment as the heavy metals inevitably leach out from landfills.
A nuclear waste plant is not for every neighbourhood, but it is safe to say that the tide has been turned with the successful siting and placing into service of nuclear waste facilities in Finland & Sweden. Ontalo, Finland is on the map with the support of the Finnish Greens and has demonstrated the power of the consent-based process. Innovation is gearing up to play a major role as numerous waste management solutions have been demonstrated such as Transmutation, Waste Burning reactors, Engineered Lateral wellbores, etc. They will arrive over the next decade as SMRs and advanced reactors come online.
In the final analysis, Nuclear Energy is just one more tool in the toolbox that will only be ignored at our collective peril.
There may be NIMBYism in certain parts of the world, but globally there is significant growth in buildouts and restarts (e.g. China)
As for nuclear waste, a relatively small amount is produced and viable solutions exist (e.g. underground storage).
It ain't perfect, but it's still my favorite all things considered.
It is bad that an interview like this is even needed to explain the opaque details of the uranium trust. Shouldn't this clear explanation be posted on Sprott's web site? I'm not a shareholder but I would find tihs all offensive if I were. As it is, it is a reason to avoid Sprott products. I've had other issues with Sprott.
It is posted on their website. There's a detailed prospectus.
Exactly. He's just explaining it in more casual terms. The formal documentation is there.
I'm not an expert on the nuclear physics of closed-end funds, but if they keep growing at this pace, could their AUM become supercritical? I feel like that could lead to an exponentially accelerating drop in NAV...
Could POTUS spoil the party by using the DPA to declare uranium a strategically important mineral, as he’s done recently for other critical materials?
This is a Canadian trust. Does the DPA cover off Canada?
Notably, John C has said that they would potentially sell the uranium pending a shareholder vote. The value of the current pounds held is a drop in the bucket relative to the national debt.
That’s an excellent point. The article does note, however, that SPUT is in the process of acquiring a NYSE-listed ETF, so that SPUTs shares can trade on the NYSE, like its parent company Sprott, Inc. Not sure what type of DPA jurisdiction that would invoke, but even if it does, the DPA does not authorize confiscation; it would just compel greater production from domestic producers to compete and control prices.
Perhaps more troubling however is the following 08/21 uranium recommendation (published in the Federal Register) by the Commerce Secretary to ban imports of uranium sourced from many countries:
“Due to the threat to the national security, as defined in Section 232, from excessive uranium imports, the Secretary recommends that the President take immediate action by adjusting the level of these imports through the implementation of an import waiver to achieve a phased-in reduction of uranium imports. The reduction in imports of uranium should be sufficient to enable U.S. producers to recapture and sustain a market share of U.S. uranium consumption that will allow for financial viability, and would enable the maintenance of a skilled workforce and the production capacity and uranium output needed for national defense and critical infrastructure requirements. The reduction imposed should be sufficient to enable U.S. producers to eventually supply 25 percent of U.S. utilities' uranium needs based on 2018 U.S. U308 concentrate annual consumption requirements.”
So if SPUT sourced cheap uranium from say RU to sell to US power generators (which are considered vital to US security in the above Dept. of Commerce recommendation), would that sale be a prohibited import, even if SPUT is Canadian?
It seems like these pending rules would be already reflected in the SPUT share price, and I really am just looking to learn not invest or contradict anyone, so any responses would be academically appreciated, since I’m obviously way out of my lane.
My avatar eyes are not even glowing!
Thanks!
They absolutely should. This is nothing but another shameless capitalist raising available billions from investors to buy up all of a strategic mineral and remove it from the market. Nothing different than cornering a market. Price increases in nuclear fuel costs for a power plant just end up being passed down to consumers via higher electricity prices, while Sprott profits. End this nonsense.
That's capitalism baby.
Let's control the price of oil, food, and everything else while we're at it ..
The relative $ value of this resource is so small, even if it triples from here it's still affordable.
You can relax. There world has bigger problems than SPUT.
Re: Sitting Down With Sprott
Seems as if the full transcript should be offered to all paid subscribers.
Just a thought...
Note: The full transcript of our conversation with Ciampaglia – including his reaction to the AMC/Hycroft Mining deal and the mechanics of physical redemption in PHYS and PSLV – as well as our thoughts on the potential investment consequences of the consummation of the URNM deal, will be emailed to Doomberg Pro members tomorrow, Sunday, April 10th.
can someone explain to me how a fund dedicated to buying uranium is different from cornering the market?
Yes that’s exactly what they’re doing. And since there is no mechanism to dispose of their uranium, what happens when the tide goes out and everyone wants to cash out? WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM…? Not only do they corner the market, they are effectively a Ponzy scheme because they buy an asset that they can’t sell! Investors are paying good money to put perfectly good uranium ore out of circulation
John C has previously said that they would sell the pounds pending a shareholder vote. The point is they don't trade the pounds or loan them out.
They have similar funds for gold, silver, palladium, etc. And there are several similar funds out there.
It's not one fund controlling the whole market.
Did you guys notice Russia displaying to the world the vulnerability of having nuclear power plants as wartime potential shields/targets in Ukraine? That was not subtle or unintentional. That will remain as an existential issue and threat to nuclear power going forward. We’re seeing that former rules based tactics of war are off the table with US confiscation of Sovereign reserves, Hypersonic missiles, threats of Nukes, Killer drones, Cyber warfare, etc….Nothing is off the table and game theory favors unintended consequences and therefore the unthinkable is no more.
Would Russia intentionally target a nuclear plant on their own border? Seems unlikely.
They’re not downwind. Western Europe NATO is downwind from Chernobyl with prevailing Northwest winds.
It’s a valid point. However, there are more hydro-electric dams scattered around the world/US with WAY more potential for massive devastation/immediate loss of human life if hit during a kinetic war than nuclear plants (although a nuclear plant attack is mind-numbingly unfathomable).
True. So many diabolical ways available these days to cause death and destruction and we haven’t even mentioned biological. Which makes one wonder why we escalate instead of negotiate? The US, Russia and China must especially learn to live peacefully together for all our sakes. Power must be shared in this new paradigm to prevent conflict but we’re not liking that concept.
We call out the key risk to the industry in the piece.
Off topic, but Sprott is still firing people for not taking the jab - disgraceful.
If true this is deplorable.
wow seriously? I was planning on moving some more money over to them, but I can't support companies that do this.
I would appreciate if you could found / refer this allegation?
Not an allegation - colleague was fired on 4/1.
If this is a joke, well done.
No joke - I was over the shoulder for the whole process (will next be heading to court for redress). Fired for cause. At the end, they offered the opportunity to resign with a slap in the face severance. 2 years in, and I still can't believe this is happening in Canada, and so many don't seem to care.
Probably most of their employees aren't 19, so it's a good IQ-filter.
Wow, that is hugely disappointing.
Thanks for this great article. Big fan of Sprott for a little over a year now. In true amateur fashion I got into SRUUF at the first spike to 14 - FOMO, it’s a biatch - but then avg down in 11s. I am a believer that uranium could be a generational opportunity. Keeping an eye out for the miners etf and NYSE listing. You guys are alright.
SRUUF is up to $15.87 now.
Thank you Russ!
Love the work Doom. Thanks for the heads up on the uranium, does Sprott see any disruption with Thorium reactors long term or have any plans to disrupt any of the other parts of the metals exchange after the nickle market blow up?
Will save up for the sub. Probably be a year. Working for oneself cut my budget, and fifth child on the way, means it takes a little work to squeeze this one on the coop! I'll follow on Twitter, and may even start a Twitter account back up after I deleted my old one just to follow your team.
Take care!
Hi Chad - send us an email and we will work something out.