Couple thoughts #uranium $PDN $PALAF

For views such as this I only ever work in back-of-envelope. Sustaining capex changes / cost inflation, commodity financialisation (blow off top?), mgmt decision to do CR, prognosticating about health of credit markets in '23/'24
Make it nigh impossible for a guy like me to credibly assess cost of debt/equity or unforeseen costs in LH maintenance.
So with fairly draconian cost assumptions and conservative earnings multiple this is where I see $PDN share px for different #uranium contract px's
Now px is A$0.66. "Fairly" valued for a '24 mine restart at $50 ($A0.73). Happy to accumulate here and below if we see more pain in the market (as I expect) because at #uranium U3O8 = USD$80, we may see 4x in the value of the mine. I stop at $120 (conservative by utwit standards)
But I will be long gone by that price (except if we see major geopol blockade via Russia or Kazakh - not formalised yet).
Just a reminder for your sanity. Remember mining is one of the most difficult sectors to invest in - hence I only go one step up in risk curve beyond $CCJ & $KAP and have only minor exposure to explorers. There is no moonshot for #uranium equities without
LT #uranium px outperformance. But in this I have very strong confidence. I am conservative in all speculations by nature (in grad school & living off portfolio distributions, I have to be), so this doesn't add any value for the ~300m lbs $PDN has in their
Michelin / Mount Isa / Manyingee exploration assets. Last cycle these were valued at $5-10 / lbs (and at ~300m pounds... that's an extra market cap or two at current SP). So for all the folks suffering from +50% to -10% this yr in #uranium portfolios
Just remember when financial conditions are constricted the mkt values companies able to create liquidity in their own shares; buybacks, div capitalisation, FCF (and not what Uber's CEO thinks cash flow is). Though 1-2 yrs out for $CCJ and $PDN it will come
For the #uranium mining sector the same way it has for O&G (XLE +41% YTD). Add increasingly +ve sentiment on #nuclear and the absolute necessity of it (in my view) for clean energy goals. Just getting started. #patience

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with IRONMAN Uranium

IRONMAN Uranium Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @UraniumIronman

May 17
1) "Nuclear is too slow"

Yes, SMRs may be a few yrs away. @NuScale_Power's first SMR will be operational in 7 years, which isn't "decades away." Conventional nuclear plants are used the world over, and if you hadn't noticed the trend, are increasingly sought after
1) cont.

The UK, Ukraine, France, Philippines, Czech Republic, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, even the US (vis a vis Diablo/SUR/current rumblings in Congress), among others, have all opened tenders, slowed closures, or are actively developing new plants for use this decade.
Read 14 tweets
Apr 26
Quick thread with some math on why this matters for all newer #uranium folks:

Feedstock uranium is usually enriched to 3%-5% of U-235. Say you tail 0.1% by weight (i.e., waste material)
Let's produce 1 kilogram of EUP. Let feed assay = 0.7% (how much of the to-be enriched material is U-235), and a tails assay of 0.1% (waste material).
Uranium for fuel is enriched to 3%-5% usually so let's use 4% as the target product assay.
1 kg of EUP needs 6.3 kg of unenriched uranium stock at our feed assay. This needs ~9 SWU, which at 60 kW/hr (reasonable amount of electricity needed to enrich uranium at a gas centrifuge plant). So 9 SWU for 60 kW/hr at $72 per 1 kg of SWU means
Read 8 tweets
Apr 23
Whole thread is good, have a look

A lot of flow reasons to indicate last wk’s slugging may have been the worst of it (particularly in XME/XLE/etc.)

@Sprott takes over $URNM #uranium etf on Monday. Lining up to coincide with a bounce - may be indistinguishable in cause vs flows
But they will look like magicians lol. They earn a fee for ETF AUM. In their interest to increase both inflows and value of underlying. If you wanna see where anything goes in the markets, look at the incentives…
$CCJ earnings coming up in 2 wks. We are gonna hear how MacArthur plans are going (I believe it will take longer than 2 yrs to get to 15m prod) & strength in contracting mkt. Don’t forget Duke has already tapped $PDN and a bunch of LH is promised to the Chinese already
Read 6 tweets
Apr 13
Just to be clear what the NYSE @Sprott #uranium listing will do for us
1) Hedge funds have liquidity requirements (measured in avg daily volume or top of book size/depth) for new positions. NYSE much larger than TSX and ceteris paribus, more volume invites more players

(cont)
2) No reason why a NYSE listed product shouldn't have listed options. May have a grace period (I think IPO -> options listing is 5 days for new issuances?)

Dealer hedging + gamma exacerbate vol but as we all expect... call volume will outpace

(cont)
2b) People who know their way around #vol twit will chuckle at the lesser/second order greeks. Charm d(delta)/dt, vanna d(delta)/d(IV) are important structural sources of dealer notional. Another tailwind to having options listed (hopefully with more OI than $URNM...)
Read 7 tweets
Apr 12
At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold […]
“That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate.”
“Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?” - Sun Microsystems CEO, post 2000s tech bubble
Read 6 tweets
Mar 16
I'm no attorney... but new @natlawreview article says OFAC will likely bar 'new investment' (any payment or credit) in the Russian energy sector (including "refinement, [...], conversion, enrichment, transport, or purchase of [...] #uranium (in any form)"
Borrowing from @TwainsMustache: RosAtom is ~40% of downstream (in oil & gas terms) and inventories are drawing down 12 million bbls / day equivalent

No sugarcoating it. _Explicit_ announcement of the specifics of this press release is a black swan event in #uranium
And that's to say nothing of the KazAtomProm JV with Russian uranium companies, shipping bans, and the recent $KAZ call with production guidance coming in a little light
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(