Playing Chess With Uranium

Certain commodities, including gold, silver, oil, copper, steel and even corn and wheat, get a fair amount of play week in and week out. But generally, you don’t hear much regular talk about uranium. And this commodity is undergoing some big changes that investors should be paying attention to right now.

Uranium has one real commercial use these days; it’s the fuel for nuclear reactors.

The Japanese tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima reactors in Northern Japan effectively killed the global nuclear industry and has stunted the growth of uranium miners in the process.

Japan, which was highly dependent upon nuclear power, has powered down its reactors and has been re-evaluating its nuclear energy policy since the accident. Germany has vowed to end its nuclear development and nuclear power purchases. The United States’ nuclear industry has had a couple of significant hurdles to overcome.

First, even before Fukishima, when oil prices were high and going higher, many large utilities were considering building new generation nukes to meet tightening emission standards that were affecting their coal plants and to find more efficient ways to generate the growing power needs of an increasingly electrified nation.

The problem was that because of past experiences with U.S. nukes (Three Mile Island and Diablo Canyon, for example) regulations make building new nukes extremely expensive. The Federal government wasn’t interested in considering nukes “green energy” and didn’t want to finance or subsidize new nuclear plants. And the power companies couldn’t justify the hefty price tags for building the new, safer nuclear plants on their own.

Second, nuclear power has an uneasy reputation with individuals and government officials. Storing the waste, concern over operational safety and other issues tend to make siting and development acrimonious at best. People may curse dirty coal, but few praise clean nukes.

Yet this attitude is much different in other countries where uranium is abundant and energy is needed on a massive scale — now and in the future.

China has not backed off its efforts to build new nuclear plants, India is also expanding its nukes and Russia has no qualms with nuclear energy. Even Japan, which was getting more than 20 percent of the nation’s power from its nukes, is considering putting some of its nukes back on line or upgrading plants to the new generation of reactors.

What’s more, nuclear energy has become a lot safer than it used to be. Two, three or four decades ago, when the last generation of nukes were put on line, there were a number of different types of reactors and different types of power plants housing them and there were just as many contractors and siting criteria. Each plant had to be scrutinized from concept to construction. It was an outrageously costly and time-consuming process, which isn’t good for business or consumers.

Now, there are only a few different reactors that are used and just a few companies that build them. The new facilities are more reliable, and they are certainly safer than the ones that suffered catastrophic failure in Fukushima. (The Fukushima facilities were built almost 40 years ago.)

That means these countries are able to build reactors at a much faster pace than they were built in the past. Granted it still takes years to get one up and running but they’re coming.

That’s where the uranium story gets interesting. Just like any industry, when there is a long bear market, the weak players can stick it out only so long until they either start to buckle or someone buys them out at a bargain.

That’s what is starting to happen now. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity is ramping up among uranium miners.

The Russians and the Chinese have been using their natural resources. They’re starting to realize that this is a good time to start buying properties around the world, including in the United States. Africa is another prime location for uranium operations. Controlling uranium means controlling prices.

Recently, Uranium One Inc. (SXRZF), a Canada-based miner with operations in the United States, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and Tanzania, was purchased by its largest shareholder, JSC Atomredmetzoloto, which just happens to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian State Corporation for Nuclear Energy. Get the picture? Russians are acquiring North American uranium mines.

And big mining companies are also starting to snap up smaller players in anticipation of growing demand from Asia.

As the global chess match for uranium resources gets under way, it’s a good idea to start to add to a strategic position or two in this commodity. There’s potential demand from known growth factors. And if Europe, the United States or other emerging economies decide to develop nuclear energy, that will simply tighten supply even more and the stocks will move even higher.

At this point, the best way to position yourself in this sector is to buy big miners like U.S.-based producer Cameco Corp. (CCJ), Australia-based Paladin Energy Ltd. (PALAF) and Canada-based Denison Mines Corp. (DNN). Another more diversified choice is U.K.-based Rio Tinto PLC (RIO). All have operations beyond their home countries, but I thought it valuable to understand the global nature of this business.

The most diversified play and the most commodity-based would be the exchange-traded fund Global X Uranium (URA). Or if you’re interested in making a play on the nuclear industry, try Market Vectors Nuclear Energy (NLR).

You don’t have to run out and do this tomorrow. But the signs indicate uranium is going to get back on its feet in coming months, and prices are so cheap that there’s far less downside risk than there is upside potential.

— GS Early

GS Early is editor of Liberty Investor Digestâ„¢ and managing director of Fresh Eyes Media, a media management and consulting firm that develops custom content and marketing solutions for financial businesses and publishers. Gregg has been a leader in the financial publishing business for two decades and has worked on content strategies with every major publisher in the industry, as well as organizations like CNBC, Morgan Keegan, Folio Investing and Moneyshow. He is an award-winning writer and editor and has built many of the top publications available to investors today. His specialties are emerging technologies (biotech, nanotech, robotics), defense and cybersecurity. He is a graduate of James Madison University.

| All posts by GS Early

Join the Discussion:

2 Responses to "Playing Chess With Uranium"

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  1. cctyker says:

    Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and other disasters in Great Britain, Russia, and the United States are all disasters in 30-60 years old technology.

    Modern nuclear reactors are much safer, yet the older, much more dangerous designs are not allowed to be brought up to modern safety standards, or more importantly, replaced by 68 years of improvements in nuclear reactor designs. (Try modernizing a 1945 Chevy and see how far you get.)

    All other technologies are allowed by the US government to upgrade or use safer technology, why can’t nluclear reactors use all the knowledge available to them?

    Personally, I am amazed at the safety level people in the nuclear industry have maintained in spite of all the regulations and attitudes in the US.

    Most ships and all submarines are now nuclear driven. There are tens of thousands of operating nuclear reactors in ships plying the seas or sitting at docks in cities all over the world. They have modern reactors in them. And they are very reliable. When is the last time you worried about that?

    Perhaps your son or daughter just got off one of those nuke ships after his sea duty in the Navy. Parents seem to trust their son/daughter to military nuclear propulsion, but become fearful and adamently opposed to nuclear energy driven electrical power next door. Are we having a logic problem here? Or is it fear generating propaganda causing citizens to be illogical?

  2. GS Early says:

    I concur wholeheartedly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

eNews & Updates

Sign-Up Here For FREE Alerts from
Liberty Investor Digest.

From The Web

%d bloggers like this: