commodities uranium

Introducing ‘BUTT’ Or ‘Uranium!’

Stop and read that last quote again. “We can actually buy uranium cheaper than we can produce it.”

Stop and read that last quote again. “We can actually buy uranium cheaper than we can produce it.”
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

6 comments on “Introducing ‘BUTT’ Or ‘Uranium!’

  1. Tom Swift Jr.

    I’m disappointed in you H. After all the lamenting over the fall from grace of the active managers, you write this: “The go-to instrument for most uranium bulls is the Global X Uranium ETF…”
    Huh?
    I still went to a list of U dividend payers. When there’s blood in the streets, buy.

    • That’s Kevin Muir, not H … but yeah he also says he prefers the commodity fund U (canada)… cuz he’d rather own the commodity than the miners.

    • actually Tom, no, I did not “write this.” someone else did. see the attribution at the top.

  2. Uranium stocks gapped higher on open. This has been awhile coming as the fundies have looked good for a long time. Today I got a msg from Sprott Resources that uranium private placements are up over 30%.

    “I get a bull story that is not reliant on ever increasing liquidity from Central Bank quantitative easing”.

    Amen to that. This is an asymmetric opportunity. I get to eat lobster out tonite instead of ramen, woo-hoo

  3. Bigger picture on uranium. Uranium stocks tend to range higher as concerns over previous nuclear power plant disasters and or their inherent vulnerability to terror attacks fade into the public’s flawed memory – or some crazy world leaders start making nuclear war threats. The actual reality is that nuclear plants around the world are aging and the older earlier versions especially are becoming more prone to catastrophic failure – daily. Probability of disasters are growing, not decreasing. Probability of negative nuclear/uranium negative press is increasing, not decreasing. In the US old nuke plants are being “upgraded” – and not because it’s the safest strategy, but because they can’t get permits to build new ones, and the costs of decommissioning old nuke plants and storing the radioactive wastes are prohibitive. This is a classic market recipe for another uranium market disaster – think Fukushima #2..

    The current administrations sabre rattling (which will rattle until it can’t) is likely the prime source stirring uranium PPs in anticipation that the US is going to allow more nuke power plants to produce weapons grade nuke materials. Since the lead time on such plants is longer than this administration expected viability – even if it were to last two terms – horror of horrors – there is an extremely low probability that there will be a significant demand for increased uranium either for power plants or nuke weapons by the US.

    The only nuclear power energy source that has any reasonable expectation of expanding is Thorium, because of its less likely weaponization, it is three times more abundant than uranium (supposedly a 1000 year reserve and the US has 15+% of world reserves) and it has lower production and processing costs than uranium. “Recognized experts, such as Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls for expanded support of new nuclear power technology, and states, “the thorium option offers the world not only a new sustainable supply of fuel for nuclear power but also one that makes better use of the fuel’s energy content.” Even thorum is considered to only be another “bridge” energy source.

    The number of nuclear power plants capable of using thorium are expanding – outside the US – as usual. Perhaps ironically with Canada being one of the leading thorium reactor technology development leaders – which China has contracted with for its initial thorium reactor development. India has currently 62 thorium reactors under development to come online by 2025.

    In reality, the MIC is the only reason that uranium power plants ever existed in the US. Perhaps like BitCoin, or perhaps more related – like coal, while you might trade it, investing in uranium long term has a very low probability for positive outcome. If Lockheed Martin’s high beta fusion prototype reactor design ever comes on line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor)
    and commercial fusion reactors become a source of “near free energy” – then both uranium and even thorium may follow fossil fuels in to the trash bin of history. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Thorium-based_nuclear_power_projects)

    • Uranium is just a trade for us. Commodities are cyclical and therefore commodity related positions are more suitable for trades than buy-and-hold investments.

      Uranium was priced below its cost of production, which made it an attractive trade like oil was early last year when it was below its cost of production.

      Exogenous events, like some you cite, are always a risk. There is no certainty in these uncertain markets.

      Enlightening comments about thorium, thanks.

Speak On It

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar