Connect with us

Government

Uranium Outlook 2022: Prices Have Broken Out, How High Will They Go?

Click here to read the previous uranium outlook.2021 was another breakout year for uranium prices. Following 2020’s growth, prices for the energy fuel climbed 45 percent, rising from US$29.63 per pound in January to US$50.63 in September, a nine year…

Published

on



Click here to read the previous uranium outlook.

2021 was another breakout year for uranium prices.

Following 2020’s growth, prices for the energy fuel climbed 45 percent, rising from US$29.63 per pound in January to US$50.63 in September, a nine year high and a critical threshold for explorers, developers and producers.

Although prices were unable to maintain that level, values have been able to remain above US$40 in the months since then. As one of the few commodities to register two solid years of gains amid the pandemic, many analysts are of the belief that higher uranium prices are here to stay.


This idea has been bolstered by rising demand for clean energy, specifically the need for carbon-free electricity.

“Globally, nuclear continues to account for 10 percent of total electricity and is the second largest source of carbon-free power,” said John Kotek, vice president of policy development and public affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute. “While that number won’t change much in the near term given the number of nuclear reactors under construction today, the interest we’re seeing in new nuclear construction coupled with the increasing drive to decarbonize gives us confidence that share will grow over time.”

Kotek also noted that recent analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Energy Agency and others reinforces the expectation that world nuclear generation capacity will increase significantly by 2050.

This growth will be facilitated by new reactors coming online and joining the current global fleet of 445 reactors.

“There is a clear need for new generating capacity around the world, both to replace old fossil fuel units, especially coal-fired ones, which emit a lot of carbon dioxide, and to meet increased demand for electricity in many countries,” a 2021 report released by the World Nuclear Association states. “In 2018, 64 percent of electricity was generated from the burning of fossil fuels.”

There are now 50 new nuclear reactors under construction, with the majority being erected in China.

However, with current supply unable to meet demand, there have been talks of countries stockpiling uranium for domestic use. This topic was raised during Donald Trump's presidency, when the former head of state proposed a domestic stockpile to fuel the country’s nuclear reactors and military applications.

What other factors are important to the uranium outlook today? The Investing News Network (INN) spoke with expert market watchers to get their thoughts about the year ahead. Here's what they had to say.

Uranium outlook 2022: Will a 2007-style rally happen again?


Constrained supply in a sector that was already battling headwinds before the pandemic will likely lead to more uranium price upside in 2022. Whether values follow a path similar to 2007, when a confluence of issues catapulted the commodity to an all-time high, remains to be seen.

At that time, U3O8 underwent a massive surge from US$45 to US$139 in just 12 months. The spot price for the energy fuel currently stands at US$44.10.


25 year uranium price chart


The conditions from 2007 don’t apply this time around, and Lobo Tiggre, founder and CEO of IndependentSpeculator.com, noted that a different set of factors will be important to watch next year.

“There was no Kazatomprom holding super-cheap supply back voluntarily back then," Tiggre told INN. "And Cameco’s (TSX:CCO,NYSE:CCJ) production was down because its key mine, Cigar Lake, was flooded. Not so this time. And there weren’t companies and funds sitting on enough pounds to fuel entire countries back then either.”

Those funds include the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (TSX:U.UN), which has purchased more than US$1 billion worth of uranium since debuting partway through 2021, and ANU Energy OEIC, a physical uranium fund launched in October by Kazakhstan's Kazatomprom (LSE:KAP).

Tiggre explained that the Sprott trust could serve as either a price catalyst or a headwind. “(It) could reignite the fire, but the real catalyst this market needs — and should soon see — is utilities coming to the table to sign long-term supply contracts with miners,” he said. “Until that happens, it’s all noise and thunder. When it happens, an industry that’s currently insolvent turns positive again and should be able to deliver for shareholders.”

On the flip side, Tiggre warned that the Sprott-initiated spot price rally may be unsustainable.

“The (Sprott trust) phenomenon may have sent spot prices up higher than they 'should' be until those long-term contracts put a real floor under this market,” he said. "That makes the spot market vulnerable to correction — especially if funds that bought in the US$20s and US$30s decide to become sellers in the US$40s.”

He also pointed out, “And, as always, there is always a chance a major nuclear accident will torpedo the entire sector. Bulls who are convinced uranium will go to triple digits should never forget this.” Prior to the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, U3O8 prices had touched US$70 before steadily falling to 2016’s low of US$17.95.

As Tiggre noted, utilities coming to market is a major move that the sector is anticipating, because the primary end use of U3O8 is the fueling of nuclear reactors.

For his part, Gerardo Del Real of Digest Publishing believes utilities companies will begin purchasing once the price ticks higher. Of course, investors who want to ride the uranium wave will want to get in before that happens.

“They'll come to market when the price goes higher, because that's what the utilities do,” he said. “It's always amazing to me that the 'buy low, sell high' equation is one of the simplest equations in history. Yet it's so hard for people to get that part right. Because nobody wants to buy at the lowest because it's not attractive, it's not fun.”

He continued, “But man, is it profitable to buy at the low, hold and just wait for it to turn, especially if you're getting in on some of the better names and understand the leverage that comes with being early.”

Uranium outlook 2022: Energy correlation key to value


While gold is tied to monetary policy and the US dollar, uranium also has correlations, primarily to energy.

“Uranium marches to the beat of a very different drummer,” Tiggre said. “It will often suffer or enjoy knee-jerk reactions to news markets see as good or bad for energy, but this is usually a short-lived mistake. Consumers spending less on gas is a very different thing from utilities deciding to pull the plug on base-load energy.”

Frank Holmes, CEO and chief investment officer at US Global Investors (NASDAQ:GROW), believes the uranium market is heavily correlated to oil and gas, and is wary of the discourse around clean and green energy, especially from countries that are heavy users of coal and fossil fuels.

“What happens is a lot of these social, politically correct policy makers do not look at the law of unexpected consequences. They don't look at the collateral damage, they only see that it's going to be their utopia, but without cost,” Holmes said. “There's no free lunch on the periodic table.”

Undoubtedly, the movements of the energy sector will influence the uranium space; however, for Del Real uranium's correlation to the nuclear fuel market and utilities companies will be the key driver.

“When I look at the fact that there are 52 nuclear reactors that are under construction, (and) 120 additional ones already having their plants completed, and I look at more than 300 others that are being contemplated,” he said. "And then you consider that the utilities, which are the largest consumer of uranium, haven't even stepped off the sidelines ... I am extremely bullish on the uranium price and its ability to go higher in 2022."

Del Real also sees investment demand being a significant influence on future prices, and suggested investors look at uranium as an asset class similar to gold.

“We often get stuck in being gold bugs, or just uranium bugs, or just US dollar bugs. And, you know, there's so many different ways that you can balance out a portfolio,” he said.

“Personally, I have copper names, I have uranium names, I have gold names, physical gold and lithium names. I would just caution people to not be so married to one idea, right? We can do a couple of things at a time. And we can do those things well, if we're just paying attention.”

Uranium outlook 2022: Price expectations next year


As one of the few commodities to register two consecutive years of gains during the pandemic, uranium is poised to rise even more in 2022 — but by how much?

“I think it'll overshoot to that US$200 level, and then you're going to get one of those 50 percent retractions where it comes back to that US$100 to US$110 level,” Del Real said.

He went on to explain that the higher price point will incentivize new production to come online, which could meet the expected demand. “And then at that level, the projects that are better — sustainable and scalable — will rise to the top, and those are going to be the winners in the market,” Del Real said.

Tiggre of IndependentSpeculator.com gave a more conservative price forecast.

“My expectation is for the spot price to continue making big moves, two steps forward, one step back, until it hits at least US$60, but probably US$70,” he said.

“After that, it may or may not spike, but long term, I expect it to settle in this range (adjusting for inflation). And that will be just fine for the better exploration, development and mining companies.”

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Editorial Disclosure: The Investing News Network does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported in the interviews it conducts. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not reflect the opinions of the Investing News Network and do not constitute investment advice. All readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…

Published

on

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.

(Shutterstock)

A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending