Hey /biz/, why haven't you gotten into Uranium mining stocks?

Thanks, now I know I should avoid investing into Uranium

File: uranium.png (53KB, 718x726px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 718x726px

Now is not the time for uranium.

The top chart show the Canadian stock for Cameco, the largest publicly traded uranium company in the world and the third largest uranium company outright. They account for 16% of the world's uranium production, and have four operations in Canada, three in the United States, and one in Kazakhstan, with projects in Germany, the US, and Australia. They also own Nukem Energy, which is one of the largest intermediaries in the international nuclear fuel market, and they run refining and power generating plants. They hold 429 million pounds of proven and probable reserves, and they supply much of the world's nuclear reactor fleet. Sounds great right?

Wrong. The second chart shows the price of uranium. Demand for the fuel has not grown in decades, and it doesn't seem like it will. Cameco's sales volume declined 12% from 2013 to 2014, resulting in a 27% drop in gross profit, and Nukem Energy saw a 9% drop in sales volume, 25% drop in revenue.

The US Navy is currently building only one nuclear aircraft carrier, and no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since 1971, with scant discussion on the topic having occurred since then. Four nuclear power plants have been shut down in the US in the past four years, but those will be mitigated by potentially six new reactors coming online by 2020 (no guarantees though). Most nuclear expansion in the US is simply refurbishment of existing plants, and Canada is no better. A nuclear reactor hasn't been built since the nineties, and the ones that are proposed don't even use uranium as a fuel source (they plan on using thorium).

New plants being built worldwide are mostly being built in China, India, Pakistan, and South Korea. Asia is dominated by the China Nuclear International Uranium Corporation and the Uranium Corporation of India, so Cameco and other North American uranium companies will gain practically nothing.

So I repeat, now is not the time for uranium.
1/2

>>1377021
Your best bet, in my opinion, is to short Cameco. I suggested doing that in early September to a few friends, saying they'd drop 5-10% in a year, and they're down over 20% since then. Cameco is on a downward slide, and judging its performance the past year, I expect it to continue sliding, falling 15-25% this upcoming year. Until serious talk of expanding nuclear energy production starts, don't expect a long on uranium to be profitable.

The rise of lithium batteries is a bearish sign for uranium.

We have the ability to store solar power in our homes for use at night using these batteries.

>Solar+batteries are the future.

We will probably still need nuclear and other forms of electricity, just not to the same extent as we do now.

>>1377038
While I agree that solar is the future, I think nuclear will be a valuable transition from extremely unsustainable fossil fuels to renewable energy. The weight to energy ratio is enormous for nuclear, so its ability to slow down our resource consumption while maintaining energy production will be important.

Just, like I said in >>1377021 and >>1377029, now is not the time.

>>1377086
truth is maybe solar will be an important part of earths future energy market, but solar won't get you anywhere in the solar system.

nuclear torches have the fuel efficiency required to have ships capable of reaching 1G continuous acc and traverse the solar system efficiently and fast.

fusion drives would have even better efficiency per mass but they are still kinda silence fiction.

uranium would play a great part as space fuel in the beginning of expansion.

>>1377417
>silence fiction
kek

so anyways the way i see it most likely nuclear torches will have greater fuel mass to less drive mass and fusion drives the other way around. more complicated drive with huge magnetic coils and shit but also capable of much longer travel without refuel with much less fuel mass.

nucelar torches however are just good enough and it's basically all thought out. plenty of patents and shit about it. for interstellar you definitely need something better than nuclear between earth mars and venus it's good.

>>1377417
You're thinking unrealistically long term. None of us will be alive by the time nuclear is used exclusively to propel interstellar spacecraft. On this board, on /biz/, the discussion is dealing with how we can profit off of it, and that method will be through the use of nuclear as a fuel source for on-planet buildings. Any other discussions of interstellar travel belong on >>>/sci/

>>1377620
actually if you are thinking in terms of dynasty rather than just yourself it's perfectly fine to think of it as investment. if it performs ok in your lifetime and explodes after it it's still not worthless to your kids, however i disagree on that. i think second or third gen mars charters might just use it if it becomes a thing. that alone not gonna push up demand but rather show people the potential which will be priced in even before the real potentials are unlocked.

>>1377021
>Nukem Energy
Wew. I think if Canada imports a few more Punjabs and Chinese, sells off more of its resources, tosses some workplace safety legislation - Canadian uranium mining might be competitive. It's like gold, not that there isn't plenty of it to mine but how can first world country compete with third world mega operations? In fact most large Canadian mining operations work outside of Canada for that reason, pennies an hour for labor. I did hear of a surplus and new reactors will probably try and reuse the piles of spent fuel rods kicking around that no one knows what to do with.

>>1376775
Because Uranium is decaying.