Reliable electricity generation is needed to recover from this pandemic. Baseload electricity is more important than ever to run hospitals and homes. You don’t want to rely on foreign supplies during a crisis. The u.s has like no production output at the moment, while the u.s is the largest consumer of uranium.
The key problem with this thesis is the chart at 9:55. It assumes lots of new build and few retirements. There are going to be many retirements in the OECD countries in the next 20 years, where the average reactor is more than 30 years old. The only new build is going to come from non-OECD countries, where players like Rosatom are offering unbeatable package deals on a cradle to grave basis. In that package, the U3O8 is an afterthought, with funding, spent fuel management etc being much more important. That's why Kazatomprom is vertically integrating into enrichment, fuel assemblies etc. So the typical TSX or ASX listed company doesn't stand a chance in this new "big boys" world. That's where the puck is actually going...
fatherjack2300 your reasoning is flawed for the upcoming bull-cycle. Kaza and the Russians might well be building vertically integrated infrastructure for the Chinese new-builds, however those reactors you talk about coming off-line in OECD still have to be supplied in the contract market before they start to roll off in 2020 and beyond. 2-years for supply lead time and they should be contracting now (and would be if 232 wasn’t holding them up) in an environment where supply is contracting. Mikes point (and he is a short by nature!) is that the narrative of plentiful supply is flawed. If Kaza are busy selling off excess inventory to funds, suppling the Chinese and reducing production (19% in 2018) then where is the supply going to come from for the next 10-year contracting cycle. Additionally the narrative of old reactor shutdowns is also old news, the French, British and some US have committed to extending reactor life by an additional 10-15 years.
Hi Peter 1. The Japanese have taken on almost 8 years of uranium in the form of fuel assemblies, based on their previous consumption rate, which equates to 16 years based on current demand. While they may not be sellers of the fuel, they have stopped being a source of demand for the next 16 years. So any discussion of industry demand patterns has to take this into account. 2. Kazatomprom only cut production because they ran out of storage space. Their track record in bringing new ISR well fields into production is astounding in terms of both time and cost. So the nonsense about how long it takes to bring a complex mine in Athabasca into production cuts no ice. It merely demonstrates how structurally disadvantaged traditional mines are. 3. BHP's Olympic Dam is the largest single reserve of economically mineable uranium in the world. This mine is planning to triple output in the next 8 years. With uranium being a by-product of Copper and Silver, the mine is impervious to weakness in the uranium price. So the $50/lb argument is far from being a slam dunk. 4. Underfeeding is not only a factor of the uranium price, it also reduces the environmental cost of storing DU. So the underfeeder makes money from the recovered U3O8, the sunk cost of conversion, the Fluorine gas that is no longer twinned with metal and the future storage costs. While the price of SWU's has recently improved, they are still 60% down from 5 years ago. Rosatom's generation 8 enrichment plants running on cheap east-Russian electricity, effectively puts any western plants at the top of the cost curve. The no-capex narrative is therefore not a sign of health, but a sign of how dead the demand is. 4. The extension of reactor lives beyond their original design life of 40 years is a very hazardous business. Recent examples show that the uprates can be much more tricky than anticipated and have had to be abandoned altogether. Only time will tell if each and every one of these old pressure vessels can really be operated safely. ("An accident anywhere is an accident everywhere"). A single accident would make any uranium investment utterly unsalable.
fatherjack2300 lot to unpick there! TH-cam comments prob not the place to do it. Again lots of inference but not much fact. Kaza’s ISR as the main supply bear argument is relevant against Athabasca in cost terms but irrelevant in a global context when you take profitability, sustainability, diversity of supply and nationalistic realities into account. If your argument was correct no utility would ever contract with anyone else and that is self evidently untrue, not least the Chinese who are happy to guarantee supply by owning and operating mines at well above spot price. Additionally storage argument is bunk. All of Kazas above ground stockpile is spoken for and already part of the supply chain according to my source on this.
@@interests1094 Honestly, I don’t know, it’s a long time and they’re talking about a certain bull trend and so on, but even last year’s uranium price increase cannot be called phenomenal.
Hey I agree. It’s only risen from its lows it’s not anywhere near bull market level. But some positives are uuuu vanadium production. I mean it’s a big deal as there aren’t many producers of vanadium or mines. That’s great news for uuuu. Then the 232 result could change things a lot for u.s producers. Until we see the result we really don’t know.
Unreal watching this in late 2021 and seeing it all play out.
Alkin was early and RIGHT! He is reaping the rewards now! This guy needs to be listened to.
Wow seeing this today in Dec 2020 greatly reinforces everything in this presentation. Great time to be in this sector.
Brilliant! Mike Alkin is top notch.
He's old Ben Stiller
The post everyone has been waiting for !
On point Mike! More detail than other speakers +less spin = education.
Go where the puck is going to be . Back up your truck and load UP! and wait FOR IT!
Wait 3 more years.
Dont get me wrong I really like uranium but It still looks like we are some time out. I'm buying more every month that passes so hey im happy
Reliable electricity generation is needed to recover from this pandemic. Baseload electricity is more important than ever to run hospitals and homes. You don’t want to rely on foreign supplies during a crisis. The u.s has like no production output at the moment, while the u.s is the largest consumer of uranium.
They have little to no emergency stockpile. There is no nuclear mining industry in the u.s. It’s a reliable base load. It’s clean and efficient.
The key problem with this thesis is the chart at 9:55.
It assumes lots of new build and few retirements.
There are going to be many retirements in the OECD countries in the next 20 years, where the average reactor is more than 30 years old.
The only new build is going to come from non-OECD countries, where players like Rosatom are offering unbeatable package deals on a cradle to grave basis. In that package, the U3O8 is an afterthought, with funding, spent fuel management etc being much more important.
That's why Kazatomprom is vertically integrating into enrichment, fuel assemblies etc.
So the typical TSX or ASX listed company doesn't stand a chance in this new "big boys" world.
That's where the puck is actually going...
fatherjack2300 your reasoning is flawed for the upcoming bull-cycle. Kaza and the Russians might well be building vertically integrated infrastructure for the Chinese new-builds, however those reactors you talk about coming off-line in OECD still have to be supplied in the contract market before they start to roll off in 2020 and beyond. 2-years for supply lead time and they should be contracting now (and would be if 232 wasn’t holding them up) in an environment where supply is contracting. Mikes point (and he is a short by nature!) is that the narrative of plentiful supply is flawed. If Kaza are busy selling off excess inventory to funds, suppling the Chinese and reducing production (19% in 2018) then where is the supply going to come from for the next 10-year contracting cycle.
Additionally the narrative of old reactor shutdowns is also old news, the French, British and some US have committed to extending reactor life by an additional 10-15 years.
Hi Peter
1. The Japanese have taken on almost 8 years of uranium in the form of fuel assemblies, based on their previous consumption rate, which equates to 16 years based on current demand. While they may not be sellers of the fuel, they have stopped being a source of demand for the next 16 years. So any discussion of industry demand patterns has to take this into account.
2. Kazatomprom only cut production because they ran out of storage space. Their track record in bringing new ISR well fields into production is astounding in terms of both time and cost. So the nonsense about how long it takes to bring a complex mine in Athabasca into production cuts no ice. It merely demonstrates how structurally disadvantaged traditional mines are.
3. BHP's Olympic Dam is the largest single reserve of economically mineable uranium in the world. This mine is planning to triple output in the next 8 years. With uranium being a by-product of Copper and Silver, the mine is impervious to weakness in the uranium price. So the $50/lb argument is far from being a slam dunk.
4. Underfeeding is not only a factor of the uranium price, it also reduces the environmental cost of storing DU. So the underfeeder makes money from the recovered U3O8, the sunk cost of conversion, the Fluorine gas that is no longer twinned with metal and the future storage costs. While the price of SWU's has recently improved, they are still 60% down from 5 years ago. Rosatom's generation 8 enrichment plants running on cheap east-Russian electricity, effectively puts any western plants at the top of the cost curve. The no-capex narrative is therefore not a sign of health, but a sign of how dead the demand is.
4. The extension of reactor lives beyond their original design life of 40 years is a very hazardous business. Recent examples show that the uprates can be much more tricky than anticipated and have had to be abandoned altogether. Only time will tell if each and every one of these old pressure vessels can really be operated safely. ("An accident anywhere is an accident everywhere"). A single accident would make any uranium investment utterly unsalable.
fatherjack2300 lot to unpick there! TH-cam comments prob not the place to do it. Again lots of inference but not much fact. Kaza’s ISR as the main supply bear argument is relevant against Athabasca in cost terms but irrelevant in a global context when you take profitability, sustainability, diversity of supply and nationalistic realities into account. If your argument was correct no utility would ever contract with anyone else and that is self evidently untrue, not least the Chinese who are happy to guarantee supply by owning and operating mines at well above spot price. Additionally storage argument is bunk. All of Kazas above ground stockpile is spoken for and already part of the supply chain according to my source on this.
fatherjack2300 RE Olympic dam - again it’ll come too late for this cycle.
You were wrong
I’ve been holding 5 names for a few years now. I’m ready!
And they are?
interests10 CCJ, DNN, UEC, FCCUF, NXE
Kyle Martin what’s funny about it?
Uuuu
mike alkin is a boss
So invest in Uranium directly or rather miners?
Mining companies.
The same gold and sililver. You invest gold and you can get 1x 2x 3x ... Mining companies might be 10x
No Kazakhs in 2007 .... oversupply + deminishing demand ... same talk since 2011 ... uranium is black hole foe your money
People are only wowed by this because of the last uranium market. People expect it like the last market.
get this dude on real vision please
why is old Ben Stiller talking about Uranium?
It’s Walter Mitty
Nice speech, But again question number one - when?
Yup and what are your top picks?
@@interests1094 UUUU, URG, DNN, NXE, UEC (Amir&gold)
@@alexordov9052 ahh nice. like uuuu. how high could this go to..i wonder.
@@interests1094 Honestly, I don’t know, it’s a long time and they’re talking about a certain bull trend and so on, but even last year’s uranium price increase cannot be called phenomenal.
Hey I agree. It’s only risen from its lows it’s not anywhere near bull market level. But some positives are uuuu vanadium production. I mean it’s a big deal as there aren’t many producers of vanadium or mines. That’s great news for uuuu. Then the 232 result could change things a lot for u.s producers. Until we see the result we really don’t know.
Are Uranium prices set to rise? th-cam.com/video/5YTbVPwO2JM/w-d-xo.html