Uranium Price - Where is it heading?

[fiftyeight]

Struggling to find a good bear case for uranium.

Can anyone point in the right direction?

 

[Ann]

G'day fiftyeight

If you want a bear case for uranium, a bear case you shall get!

 

[fiftyeight]

G'day fiftyeight

If you want a bear case for uranium, a bear case you shall get!

View attachment 93581

Not sure how I missed that one

Are these record low levels likely to continue?

Lots of info out there to suggest these lows wont last too much longer, but cannot find much to suggest these lows will continue.

 

[Ann]

Not sure how I missed that one

Are these record low levels likely to continue?

Lots of info out there to suggest these lows wont last too much longer, but cannot find much to suggest these lows will continue.

Aww fiftyeight, I thought you wanted a bear chart, would you like me to draw you up a bull chart on the same data?

 

[Ann]

I am really trying to be bullish for you by calling it a Symmetrical Triangle, however in reality I think it is more a bearish Descending Triangle (with a typo). Tried my best and it may rise as you will note with my first chart, the highs and lows are getting closer together. That must be a positive!

However I need to voice my bias. I hate uranium and nuclear power plants. That was even before all the accidents that have occurred. I told people long before anything had happened these places are just a nightmare waiting to happen and **** like Chernobyl and Fukushima will continue to happen. Sorry, had to declare that.

 

[HelloU]

for me, cos it is regulated it will exist ....... not necessarily going to make an investor money though ...... and for many countries a strategic asset ....so will continue to be mined/processed (and not talking medicine here). US is making sure they have local defined stockpiles (of mainly US sourced product).

Even if the US (and others) power stations eventually fall out of favour I do see not see any near term alternatives for the fleet.

 

[Ann]

for me, cos it is regulated it will exist ....... not necessarily going to make an investor money though ...... and for many countries a strategic asset ....so will continue to be mined/processed (and not talking medicine here). US is making sure they have local defined stockpiles (of mainly US sourced product).

Even if the US (and others) power stations eventually fall out of favour I do see not see any near term alternatives for the fleet.

I believe Russia have a ship load (pun intended) of nuclear subs sunk in the seas up there. Anyone for some Atlantic Salmon?

 

[fiftyeight]

Yeah, being a strategic asset can cut both ways.

There definitely seems to be renewed interest in nuclear energy from old players, and a new push from some new entrants.

https://www.nei.org/news/2018/senators-introduce-nuclear-bill

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx

But as you mentioned, it is strategic asset, so state actors will lock up supply as much as possible rather than transact on the open market.

China already has largish stockpiles and is currently buying up uranium miners.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...m-mine-to-china-for-107-million-idUSKCN1NV2A7

And USA is working on limiting their exposure/reliance on possible hostile governments for uranium supplies.

https://www.streetwisereports.com/a...nium-producer-files-section-232-petition.html

But long term contracts will need to be signed at some stage, and if state actors are all trying to lock up supply sooner rather than later while new mines are yet to be developed, prices could rise soon and fast.

This guys seems convinced of it haha

https://twitter.com/quakes99

Even Bill Gates wants more nuclear

 

[HelloU]

I believe Russia have a ship load (pun intended) of nuclear subs sunk in the seas up there. Anyone for some Atlantic Salmon?

i hear u

If peeps are worried then they should avoid bananas as well .......

(on a side note - talking oceans - if you put a wire in the brackish tidal water, and a second wire in the salty water - you make electricity - only saying that cos that SA mirror thing got axed - and Pt Augusta has all that tidal area)

 

[Ann]

Even Bill Gates wants more nuclear

You know, you just shook me awake, I have for a long time been pondering about all this Climate Change bullsh!t and thinking it was being run for a specific agenda. I knew it wasn't for the fluffy animals even though it was mostly WWF if you looked at the protagonists funding and running the agenda. I had actually long suspected the Nuclear Power Industry of being behind it all but had no 'lever' to identify its push, other than it sat as the only power choice if we got rid of gas, coal and oil, then I veered off that thought and was thinking Big Oil was trying to get rid of small oil as they would then control the Oil price and we would have an oil price crisis and price the stuff so high it would be too costly to buy for transport et al.

I knew Gates was involved in Nuclear Power and thought he was trying to develop the 'safer' nuclear power my son talks about but is only still theory I think. I had heard he had abandoned it but didn't look further until now.

But of course Gates has all the money in the world and now Buffet has given Gates most of his money so why couldn't he buy anyone he wanted to say anything. He would have had the where-with-all to fund the creation of the IPCC and all the pro-websites for CC. He could have funded the universities and created a massive network of Tax-Free foundations and any time anyone wanted crowd funding, it could be funded.

Bill Gates's Experimental Nuclear Power Plant Halts Construction in China

If peeps are worried then they should avoid bananas as well .......

Why? I don't like them much myself but others in the house do.

(on a side note - talking oceans - if you put a wire in the brackish tidal water, and a second wire in the salty water - you make electricity - only saying that cos that SA mirror thing got axed - and Pt Augusta has all that tidal area)

I hope once Big Uranium controls our power we don't stop looking for better and cleaner ways to create electricity. Wind turbines won't cut it once the wind stops blowing and they are a right bloody eyesore. Solar won't cut it when there is snow, hailstorms or raging weather. Plus there will be a huge amount of waste product (polution) at end-of-life for solar. Wave energy just got unfunded by WA.....
Albany wave energy deal with Carnegie Clean Energy cancelled by WA Government

 

[$20shoes]

There is another aspect limiting the adoption of Uranium or nuclear power and that is the fear paradigm. How does the industry undo decades of misinformation? This is, IMHO, nuclear's biggest hurdle.

For example, there's a consensus now that Fukushima should never have been abandoned - scientific reports suggest that the incident may hypothetically have shortened some peoples lives by 2-3 years should they have chosen to stay and reside there with no increased risks of disease. And apart from the initial exposure and irradiated water and food in the area, there's no ongoing correlation between incidents at Chernobyl and increased cancer rates etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

But even grappling with facts over fiction does not remove the fear that people have. It would need to be persuasive and ongoing education, and very policymakers would care to be part of that agenda. Because theres a small but undeniable chance of death and health complications, it remains a challenge.

A big part of the problem, and a foundation to all of this, is a lack of agreement in the scientific world about what radiation exposure actually does to a person. There's even agreement that the short term exposure indicator tests (like what was used to abandon Fukushima) are probably wrong but there's no better method (that draws consensus) at this time.

Uranium as a commodity is also difficult to understand. A lot of it is opaque and spot is not a true futures market IMO. As well, uranium can come from many different sources so theres no way to know what the true supply/demand is.

John Quakes, although a bit uranium bull, made a great analogy on the whole fuel process using coffee beans to clarify the process.

 

[Ann]

There is another aspect limiting the adoption of Uranium or nuclear power and that is the fear paradigm. How does the industry undo decades of misinformation? This is, IMHO, nuclear's biggest hurdle.

I don't think it was misinformation from the anti-nuclear folk, it was probably more to do with actual accidents that happened. Up until that time NP had a strong foot-hold.

For example, there's a consensus now that Fukushima should never have been abandoned - scientific reports suggest that the incident may hypothetically have shortened some peoples lives by 2-3 years should they have chosen to stay and reside there with no increased risks of disease. And apart from the initial exposure and irradiated water and food in the area, there's no ongoing correlation between incidents at Chernobyl and increased cancer rates etc.

I think the Cancer Institutes may disagree with you that there is no correlation between cancer and exposure to radiation. I am sure they have much ongoing scientific evidence for their claims.

X-Rays and Other Sources of Radiation

High-energy radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays, alpha particles, beta particles, and neutrons, can damage DNA and cause cancer. These forms of radiation can be released in accidents at nuclear power plants and when atomic weapons are made, tested, or used.

 

[$20shoes]

I don't think it was misinformation from the anti-nuclear folk, it was probably more to do with actual accidents that happened. Up until that time NP had a strong foot-hold.



I think the Cancer Institutes may disagree with you that there is no correlation between cancer and exposure to radiation. I am sure they have much ongoing scientific evidence for their claims.

X-Rays and Other Sources of Radiation

High-energy radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays, alpha particles, beta particles, and neutrons, can damage DNA and cause cancer. These forms of radiation can be released in accidents at nuclear power plants and when atomic weapons are made, tested, or used.

Well there's a correlation with Xrays and exposure to fuel rods or radon! You die or get cancer! BEcause the halflives of the atoms are extremely short and extremely damaging in high doses.

But in the general popluation when theres exposure to nuclear radiation from a power plant the criticality is in the dosage of the first few hours after exposure. After that, the effects become less and less, and obviously with half lives of enriched U at low doses theres no correlation whatsoever.

I think if one camp reports 930,000 deaths versus a few dozen that could be construed as misinformation.

 

[fiftyeight]

You know, you just shook me awake, I have for a long time been pondering about all this Climate Change bullsh!t and thinking it was being run for a specific agenda. I knew it wasn't for the fluffy animals even though it was mostly WWF if you looked at the protagonists funding and running the agenda. I had actually long suspected the Nuclear Power Industry of being behind it all but had no 'lever' to identify its push, other than it sat as the only power choice if we got rid of gas, coal and oil, then I veered off that thought and was thinking Big Oil was trying to get rid of small oil as they would then control the Oil price and we would have an oil price crisis and price the stuff so high it would be too costly to buy for transport et al.

I knew Gates was involved in Nuclear Power and thought he was trying to develop the 'safer' nuclear power my son talks about but is only still theory I think. I had heard he had abandoned it but didn't look further until now.

But of course Gates has all the money in the world and now Buffet has given Gates most of his money so why couldn't he buy anyone he wanted to say anything. He would have had the where-with-all to fund the creation of the IPCC and all the pro-websites for CC. He could have funded the universities and created a massive network of Tax-Free foundations and any time anyone wanted crowd funding, it could be funded.

Bill Gates's Experimental Nuclear Power Plant Halts Construction in China


Why? I don't like them much myself but others in the house do.



I hope once Big Uranium controls our power we don't stop looking for better and cleaner ways to create electricity. Wind turbines won't cut it once the wind stops blowing and they are a right bloody eyesore. Solar won't cut it when there is snow, hailstorms or raging weather. Plus there will be a huge amount of waste product (polution) at end-of-life for solar. Wave energy just got unfunded by WA.....
Albany wave energy deal with Carnegie Clean Energy cancelled by WA Government

Haha thanks Ann, this one bought a smile to my morning, bloody cant trust anyone these days.

First the tree huggers hate nuclear and destroy the industry and then they team up with big business in a secret ploy to bring it in.

You cant trust the government, UN, big business or the hippies!!!!

 

[HelloU]

Why? I don't like them much myself but others in the house do.

(OT - with fear of derail)
high in potassium
potassium is naturally radioactive above most other stuff
(drop in the ocean stuff in real terms)

see ya

 

[Ann]

I think if one camp reports 930,000 deaths versus a few dozen that could be construed as misinformation.

No, I don't agree it is misinformation, I see it as conflicting information and would want to see much more information from both sides.

Haha thanks Ann, this one bought a smile to my morning, bloody cant trust anyone these days.

First the tree huggers hate nuclear and destroy the industry and then they team up with big business in a secret ploy to bring it in.

You cant trust the government, UN, big business or the hippies!!!!

I don't think the 'tree huggers' destroyed the industry, I think the evidence of what we were saying about the dangers of NP was demonstrated a couple of times.

As an 'environmentalist' myself I have seen enough to convince me you can't trust anyone anymore, even if they sing the same song. The more I listen to them singing the more discordant they seem to become.

 

[Value Collector]

Struggling to find a good bear case for uranium.

Can anyone point in the right direction?

I am not an expert on uranium and short term anything can happen, although with reactors only needing to refuel every 2 - 8 years, it’s a slow market.

But things to think about longterm.

1, renewables and wide spread battery and other storage may limit growth in centralized base load generation.

2. The USA may start reprocessing spent fuel rods (like others already do) and with over 50 years of stored waste sitting around this could be a huge future supply source.

3. New types of reactors like breeder reactors that use 100% of the fuel instead of only 1%, may render mining obsolete, because the fuel already above ground could run the world for 600 years.

4, even if you are a low cost producer, you can still be under cut by miners producing uranium as a by product to copper mining, eg like bhp, as long as the copper is selling at a good price they will continue producing and selling uranium almost no matter the price.

5, retiring old nuclear weapons is also a supply source, if the big players end up building less new replacement weapons than the old retiring ones, you will have a considerable supply of uranium hitting the market, again regardless of price.

 

[fiftyeight]

I am not an expert on uranium and short term anything can happen, although with reactors only needing to refuel every 2 - 8 years, it’s a slow market.

But things to think about longterm.

1, renewables and wide spread battery and other storage may limit growth in centralized base load generation.

2. The USA may start reprocessing spent fuel rods (like others already do) and with over 50 years of stored waste sitting around this could be a huge future supply source.

3. New types of reactors like breeder reactors that use 100% of the fuel instead of only 1%, may render mining obsolete, because the fuel already above ground could run the world for 600 years.

4, even if you are a low cost producer, you can still be under cut by miners producing uranium as a by product to copper mining, eg like bhp, as long as the copper is selling at a good price they will continue producing and selling uranium almost no matter the price.

5, retiring old nuclear weapons is also a supply source, if the big players end up building less new replacement weapons than the old retiring ones, you will have a considerable supply of uranium hitting the market, again regardless of price.

Cheers VC

Yeah there are 3 I think spot prices, with one being a 5 year contract.

Most of the above I had considered, but not quantified in any real sense. A few rabbit holes to go down.

One thing I had not considered was point 4. Will have a look at this as well

 

[Value Collector]

Cheers VC

Yeah there are 3 I think spot prices, with one being a 5 year contract.

Most of the above I had considered, but not quantified in any real sense. A few rabbit holes to go down.

One thing I had not considered was point 4. Will have a look at this as well

As I said I am no uranium expert, but to me it seems to be one of those commodities that is easily substituted, in that a growth in demand for the final product eg electricity, won’t automatically correlate with increased demand for uranium.

It’s not like Iron Ore, where as the global economy grows, demand for steel is guaranteed to grow along with it because almost everything is either made of steel, made on or transported on steel.

Uranium is a bit more like cattle, in that if the demand for food rises, it won’t necessarily make cattle farming more profitable, because cattle can be easily substituted with chicken, pork, fish, corn, soy beans or any number of other food stuffs.

Wind, solar, coal, natural gas etc etc will all compete to take market share of any new demand that arises.

 

[fiftyeight]

As I said I am no uranium expert, but to me it seems to be one of those commodities that is easily substituted, in that a growth in demand for the final product eg electricity, won’t automatically correlate with increased demand for uranium.

It’s not like Iron Ore, where as the global economy grows, demand for steel is guaranteed to grow along with it because almost everything is either made of steel, made on or transported on steel.

Uranium is a bit more like cattle, in that if the demand for food rises, it won’t necessarily make cattle farming more profitable, because cattle can be easily substituted with chicken, pork, fish, corn, soy beans or any number of other food stuffs.

Wind, solar, coal, natural gas etc etc will all compete to take market share of any new demand that arises.

Hmm not so sure about that, I had a different take on it. The lead time, life time and expense of NP is such that once it is approved and construction started you almost guarantee the uranium demand for the next 20+ years. As uranium is such small input cost, once built the NP is seeing out its life cycle.


I assume NP have some kind of guaranteed price agreement with the relevant governing body that extends into the decade kind of time period. You cannot simply just shut down a NP if the price of gas suddenly become too cheap. Something else to check up on though. Or they are actually state owned and there for control the market. Too many rich people would have skin in the game to allow that haha